gitolite/doc/nagp.mkd

# F=nagp ...not a gitolite problem!

Subtitle: Unix, ssh, git, and gitolite -- recognising the boundaries

**Warning**: Most of this is technical, but some of it is definitely
subjective opinion.

More and more people are being tasked with creating a "server" environment for
git, (and thus being forcibly introduced to gitolite), before they've had a
chance to know git (or even Unix) well enough.  As a result, I often get
questions that have **nothing** to do with gitolite, because people don't know
where the boundaries are.

Here're some facts about gitolite:

  * gitolite runs on the server.  To the client it looks just like any other
    ssh-based URL that is using public keys.

  * once you connect, it looks just like any other [bare repo][bare] on a
    server for normal git operations (clone, fetch, push).  Users won't even
    *know* it exists if they do only what they're allowed to.  (I.e., it
    becomes visible only when it has to deny access for some operation)

  * even "on disk", except for reserving the `update` hook for its own
    purposes and possibly a couple of extra files, the contents of a
    gitolite-managed bare repo are the same as a normal bare repo.

A good short term measure is to read this [simple git session][sgs] for
insights into the relationship between the "server" and the "client" in git.
That might help with some of the problems described in this document.

[bare]: http://sitaramc.github.com/concepts/0-terminology.html#working_tree_repository_bare_repository
[sgs]: http://sitaramc.github.com/1-basic-usage/simple-git-session.html

## ssh

Let's get this out of the way first.  The *superstar* of the "not a gitolite
problem" category is actually ssh.

Surprised?  It is so common that it has [its own document][auth] to tell
you why it is *not* a gitolite problem, while [another one][sts] tries to
help you anyway!

## git

  * first push to a new repo

    Even if the error message said "the remote end hung up unexpectedly", this
    is not a gitolite problem.  If you read the full message, it will probably
    be something like this:

        No refs in common and none specified; doing nothing.
        Perhaps you should specify a branch such as 'master'.
        fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
        error: failed to push some refs to '/tmp/tmp-repos/bare.git'

    (To be fair, this message is still not clear enough; even a careful reader
    might end up trying `git push master` instead of `git push origin
    master`.)

  * client-side versus server-side hooks

    Just because you saw something in gitolite's docs about hooks, it doesn't
    mean gitolite can make a "post-checkout" hook work!

    You need to read man githooks again to understand the difference between
    hooks that run on your local repo in response to local commands (like
    commit, checkout), and remote hooks that run on the server in response to
    a client-initiated operation (like push).

    An equally wrong expectation is that a clone or a pull will also bring
    along hooks from the server!  Sorry, but there is nothing in git that
    allows the *server* to do something on the *client* -- if there were, it
    would be a huge security issue.

    What you can do in gitolite is to write yourself a hook that checks every
    commit in a push for compliance and rejects the push (*all* the commits in
    the push, mind!) if it doesn't comply.  However, other than telling you
    how to get your hook to trigger, the actual code in that hook is out of
    scope for me.

  * Jenkins integration

    I don't know much about CI systems, but I'm pretty sure they run off of
    some hook or other, but gitolite may already be using those hooks.  The
    section on hook chaining [here][hookchaining] shows you how to run your own
    hooks.

    In short, CI integration is no more a gitolite problem than any other
    purpose for which git's hooks can be used.

## windows

I'm *interested* in making sure it works fine with Windows, simply because I
have colleagues at work who use it.  But that doesn't mean I can help you; I
just don't know enough to help you.  (And if you even breathe the words
"putty" or "plink" I will totally tune you out!)

I do have people using it happily on Windows with Eclipse, Visual Studio, and
God alone knows what else, so I know it *can* (be made to) work.

So, hang in there... it'll all work out eventually.

## apple

Weirdly enough, this is the one thing that Steve Ballmer and I probably agree
on, so I won't elaborate on that ;-)

It seems to me though, that many recent reports of "weird" behaviour reported
have come from Macs.  Yet another reason for me to back off with an apology.

## just say NO!

These are the things I won't do, for various reasons, mostly technical, with a
smattering of some subjective stuff.  If you've been hit by one of these, and
disagree with me -- well that's why gitolite is GPL.  As long as you satisfy
the GPL, you can simply "fork off" ;-)

  * using a database backend

    Someone wanted help rewriting gitolite to use a database instead of a perl
    hash.

    I think that's a very bad idea.  Show me an install where gitolite does
    not scale and I'll fix it without using a damn database.  I *chose* the
    perl hash very deliberately and for very specific reasons; using a DB
    would kill all that.

  * symlinks within `REPO_BASE`

    Someone wanted to put the actual repos somewhere else and create a symlink
    to them inside gitolite's `REPO_BASE`.

    No.  Gitolite assumes all of `REPO_BASE` is in its control, and nothing
    else outside is (barring the admin directory `~/.gitolite` and the rc file
    `~/.gitolite.rc`).

    You could argue that this is secure enough if the admin knows what he is
    doing, but I'm not buying that.  Some odd screwup involving symlinks will
    show up some day and gitolite will get blamed.

  * deleting environment variables copied from client session

    This same guy wanted me to add code to delete certain environment
    variables at startup because "the openssh servers in the linux
    distribution that [he] use[s], are configured to copy `GIT_*` variables to
    the remote session".

    This is wrong on so many levels it's almost plonk-able!

  * using `cp` instead of `ln`

    Guy has an NTFS file system mounted on Linux.  So... no symlinks (an NTFS
    file system on Windows works fine because msysgit/cygwin manage to
    *simulate* them.  NTFS mounted on Linux won't do that!)

    He wanted all the symlink stuff to be replaced by copies.

    No. Way.

  * non-bare repos on the server

    Some guy gave me a complicated spiel about git-svn not liking bare repos
    or whatever.  I tuned off at the first mention of those 3 letters so I
    don't really know what the actual problem was.

    But it doesn't matter.  Even if someone (Ralf H) had not chipped in with a
    workable solution, I still would not do it.  A server repo should be bare.
    Period.

### behind my back

Some of the "Just say NO" items are from situations where someone or something
changes stuff behind gitolite's back.  I am particularly unsympathetic to this
sort of thing.

  * incomplete ownership of `REPO_BASE`

    This guy had a repo-base directory where not all of the files were owned
    by the git user.  As a result, some of the hooks did not get created.  He
    claimed my code should detect OS-permissions issues while it's doing its
    stuff.

    No.  I refuse to have the code constantly look over its shoulder making
    sure fundamental assumptions are being met.

  * empty template directory

    (See man git-init for what a template directory is).

    The same guy with the symlinks and the environment variables (so this is
    his third appearance in this list!) had an empty template directory
    because he "does not like to have sample hooks in every repository".  So
    naturally, the hooks directory does not get created when you run a `git
    init`.  He expects gitolite to compensate for it.

    Granted, it's only a 1-line change.  But again, this falls under
    "constantly looking over your shoulder to double check fundamental
    assumptions".  Where does it end?

  * per-repo umask setting

    Some people believe that gitolite should have code to compensate for a
    "potential" failure of gitweb or httpd to restrict access as designed.

    Sorry.  Not in "core" at least.  This is yet another of those "constantly
    looking over your shoulder" examples.  Why should it be gitolite's problem
    to compensate if gitweb or httpd misbehave?  Yes, I know all about layers
    of security and defense in depth, thank you but no.

    <font color="gray">

    >   I gave them a solution that involves adding `config
    >   core.sharedRepository = 0750` in the gitolite.conf file for those
    >   repos, then doing a one-time fixup for newly created repos.  But they
    >   decided they needed to patch gitolite and they're going with it.

    >   I'm not too worried.  These guys ran a HEAVILY patched gitosis for
    >   years; they're probably used to it.

    </font>

## that's outrageous

This section is for really outrageous stuff.

  * clearing out a repo the long/wrong way

    This guy tells me he often needs to clear out a repo.  How?  He first
    manually deletes the repo on the server, then pushes a dummy commit to the
    admin repo to let gitolite re-create it.

    Of course, this second step is "annoying" so he mailed me and told me
    there has to be a better way!

    I asked him why he didn't try `git push -f` and he said he didn't know he
    could do that.  I'm NOT joking.  I wish I were!  (Yes, we all know that
    `git push -f` is not the same as delete/re-create, but the point is that
    he really didn't need it; he just assumed that's the only way to force his
    commits to the remote.)

  * can connect to github, can't connect to gitolite

    So this mac-fan went on about his great IDE (CodeX or something) and how
    it works with github but no luck with gitolite.  Therefore he comes and
    asks on \#gitolite.  (I give him bonus points for telling people on TWO
    channels that it is "THE best ide").

    The actual error?  "host unreachable".

    In usenet terms... `*PLONK*`!