comparison ja/hook.tex @ 838:d1f676a6a4b3 default tip

update mq chapter. propagate ef53d025f410.

837:b775f963b18c

$BB?$/$N%f!<%6$,(Bpull$B$9$k%5!<%P$KC/$+$,%A%'%s%8%;%C%H$r(Bpush$B$7$?>l9g!$%5!<%P(B
$B$O%A%'%s%8%;%C%H$r915WE*$K<u$1F~$l$kA0$K%A%'%C%/$r9T$$!$0lO"$N%F%9%H$r%Q(B
$B%9$G$-$J$1$l$P%j%8%'%/%H$r9T$&!%%f!<%6$,$3$N%U%#%k%?%5!<%P$+$i$N$_(Bpull$B$r(B
$B9T$&$N$G$"$l$P!$A4$F$NJQ99$O<+F0E*$KA4$F8!::$5$l$F$$$k$3$H$K$J$k!%(B

%\section{Care with \texttt{pretxn} hooks in a shared-access repository}
\section{$B6&M-%"%/%;%9%j%]%8%H%j$G(B\texttt{pretxn}$B%U%C%/$r;H$&(B}

%If you want to use hooks to do some automated work in a repository
%that a number of people have shared access to, you need to be careful
%in how you do this.

$BJ#?t$N%f!<%6$,6&M-%"%/%;%9$r9T$&%j%]%8%H%j$G!$<+F02=$5$l$?:n6H$r9T$&$?$a(B
$B$K%U%C%/$r;HMQ$7$?$$$J$i!$$I$N$h$&$K9T$&$+Cm0U?<$/9M$($kI,MW$,$"$k!%(B

%Mercurial only locks a repository when it is writing to the
%repository, and only the parts of Mercurial that write to the
%repository pay attention to locks.  Write locks are necessary to
%prevent multiple simultaneous writers from scribbling on each other's
%work, corrupting the repository.

Mercurial$B$O%j%]%8%H%j$K=q$-9~$_$r9T$&$H$-$K$@$1%j%]%8%H%j$r%m%C%/$9$k!%(B
$B$^$?(BMercurial$B$N=q$-9~$_$r9T$&ItJ,$N$_$,%m%C%/$r9MN8$9$k!%=q$-9~$_%m%C%/(B
$B$O!$J#?t$NF1;~=q$-9~$_$,B>$NJQ99$r>e=q$-$7!$%j%]%8%H%j$rGKB;$9$k$N$rKI$0!%(B

%Because Mercurial is careful with the order in which it reads and
%writes data, it does not need to acquire a lock when it wants to read
%data from the repository.  The parts of Mercurial that read from the
%repository never pay attention to locks.  This lockless reading scheme
%greatly increases performance and concurrency.

Mercurial$B$O%G!<%?$NFI$_=q$-$N=g=x$rCm0U?<$/9T$&$?$a!$%j%]%8%H%j$+$i$N%G!<(B
$B%?FI$_=P$7$N:]$K%m%C%/$r<hF@$9$kI,MW$,$J$$!%(B Mercurial$B$N%j%]%8%H%j$+$iFI(B
$B$_=P$7$r9T$&ItJ,$O!$%m%C%/$rA4$/5$$K$9$kI,MW$,$J$$!%$3$N%m%C%/$J$7FI$_=P(B
$B$7$K$h$C$F!$F1;~<B9T@-$H@-G=$rBgI}$K9b$a$F$$$k!%(B

%With great performance comes a trade-off, though, one which has the
%potential to cause you trouble unless you're aware of it.  To describe
%this requires a little detail about how Mercurial adds changesets to a
%repository and reads those changes.

$B$7$+$7$J$,$i$3$N9b@-G=$O$=$l$rCN$i$J$1$l$PLdBj$r0z$-5/$3$9$"$k%H%l!<%I%*(B
$B%U$r$b$b$?$i$9!%$3$l$r@bL@$9$k$?$a$K!$(BMercurial$B$,$I$N$h$&$K%A%'%s%8%;%C%H(B
$B$r%j%]%8%H%j$KDI2C$7!$$=$l$i$rFI$_=P$9$+$N>\:Y$K?($l$J$1$l$P$J$i$J$$!%(B

%When Mercurial \emph{writes} metadata, it writes it straight into the
%destination file.  It writes file data first, then manifest data
%(which contains pointers to the new file data), then changelog data
%(which contains pointers to the new manifest data).  Before the first
%write to each file, it stores a record of where the end of the file
%was in its transaction log.  If the transaction must be rolled back,
%Mercurial simply truncates each file back to the size it was before the
%transaction began.

Mercurial$B$O%a%?%G!<%?$r(B\emph{$B=q$-9~$`(B}$B$H$-!$D>@\L\E*$N%U%!%$%k$K=q$-9~$_(B
$B$9$k!%(BMercurial$B$O$^$:%U%!%$%k%G!<%?$r=q$-9~$_!$<!$$$G!J?7$7$$%U%!%$%k%G!<(B
$B%?$N>l=j$r<($9%]%$%s%?$r4^$`!K%^%K%U%'%9%H%G!<%?$r=q$-9~$`!%$=$7$F!J?7$7(B
$B$$%^%K%U%'%9%H%G!<%?$N>l=j$r<($9%]%$%s%?$r4^$`!K%A%'%s%8%m%0%G!<%?$r=q$-(B
$B9~$`!%3F!9$N%U%!%$%k$X$N:G=i$N=q$-9~$_$NA0$K!$%U%!%$%k$NKvHx$N%l%3!<%I$r(B
$B%H%i%s%6%/%7%g%s%m%0$KJ]B8$9$k!%%H%i%s%6%/%7%g%s$,%m!<%k%P%C%/$5$l$k>l9g(B
$B$O!$(BMercurial$B$O3F!9$N%U%!%$%k$r%H%i%s%6%/%7%g%s$,;O$^$kA0$N%5%$%:$K@Z$j5M(B
$B$a$k!%(B

%When Mercurial \emph{reads} metadata, it reads the changelog first,
%then everything else.  Since a reader will only access parts of the
%manifest or file metadata that it can see in the changelog, it can
%never see partially written data.

Mercurial$B$O%a%?%G!<%?$r(B\emph{$BFI$`(B}$B;~$K$^$:%A%'%s%8%m%0$rFI$_!$<!$$$G;D$j(B
$B$NItJ,$rFI$`!%%j!<%@$O%A%'%s%8%m%0$K8=$l$k%^%K%U%'%9%H$N0lIt$^$?$O%U%!%$(B
$B%k%a%?%G!<%?$N0lIt$K$N$_%"%/%;%9$9$k$?$a!$ItJ,E*$K=q$+$l$?%G!<%?$r8+$k$3(B
$B$H$O$G$-$J$$!%(B

%Some controlling hooks (\hook{pretxncommit} and
%\hook{pretxnchangegroup}) run when a transaction is almost complete.
%All of the metadata has been written, but Mercurial can still roll the
%transaction back and cause the newly-written data to disappear.

$B$$$/$D$+$N@)8f%U%C%/!J(B\hook{pretxncommit}$B$H(B\hook{pretxnchangegroup}$B!K$O%H(B
$B%i%s%6%/%7%g%s$,$[$\40N;$7$?;~$K<B9T$5$l$k!%$9$Y$F$N%a%?%G!<%?$,=q$-9~$^(B
$B$l$k$,!$$3$N;~E@$G$b(BMercurial$B$O%H%i%s%6%/%7%g%s$r85$KLa$9$3$H$,$G$-!$$=$N(B
$B>l9g$O?7$7$/=q$+$l$?%G!<%?$O>C<:$9$k!%(B

%If one of these hooks runs for long, it opens a window of time during
%which a reader can see the metadata for changesets that are not yet
%permanent, and should not be thought of as ``really there''.  The
%longer the hook runs, the longer that window is open.

$B$3$l$i$N%U%C%/$N$&$A(B1$B$D$,D9;~4V$K$o$?$C$F<B9T$5$l$F$$$k$H!$%j!<%@$,%A%'%s(B
$B%8%;%C%H$N%a%?%G!<%?$rFI$`$3$H$N$G$-$k%?%$%`%&%#%s%I%&$,3+$/!%$3$N%A%'%s(B
$B%8%;%C%H$O$^$@1JB3E*$J$b$N$K$J$C$F$*$i$:!$=>$C$F<B:_$9$k$H9M$($k$Y$-$G$O(B
$B$J$$$b$N$G$"$k!%%U%C%/$,<B9T$5$l$F$$$k;~4V$,D9$/$J$l$P$J$k$[$I!$%?%$%`%&%#(B
$B%s%I%&$,3+$/;~4V$bD9$/$J$k!%(B

%\subsection{The problem illustrated}
\subsection{$BLdBj$N>\:Y(B}

%In principle, a good use for the \hook{pretxnchangegroup} hook would
%be to automatically build and test incoming changes before they are
%accepted into a central repository.  This could let you guarantee that
%nobody can push changes to this repository that ``break the build''.
%But if a client can pull changes while they're being tested, the
%usefulness of the test is zero; an unsuspecting someone can pull
%untested changes, potentially breaking their build.

$B<BMQ$K$*$1$k(B\hook{pretxnchangegroup}$B%U%C%/$NNI$$;HMQK!$H$7$F$O!$E~Ce$7$?(B
$BJQ99$,Cf1{$N%j%]%8%H%j$K<h$j9~$^$l$kA0$K<+F0$G%S%k%I$H%F%9%H$r9T$&$3$H$,(B
$B9M$($i$l$k!%$3$l$K$h$j!$%S%k%I$rK8$2$kJQ99$OC/$b%j%]%8%H%j$K(Bpush$B$G$-$J$$(B
$B$3$H$,3N<B$K$J$k!%%/%i%$%"%s%H$,%F%9%HCf$KJQ99$r(Bpull$B$9$k$3$H$,$G$-$l$P!$(B
$B$3$N%F%9%H$NM-MQ@-$O%<%m$K$J$C$F$7$^$&!%5?$$$r;}$?$:$KC/$+$,%F%9%H$5$l$F(B
$B$$$J$$JQ99$r(Bpull$B$G$-$k$N$G$"$l$P!$H`$i$N%S%k%I$O<:GT$9$k2DG=@-$,$"$k!%(B

%The safest technological answer to this challenge is to set up such a
%``gatekeeper'' repository as \emph{unidirectional}.  Let it take
%changes pushed in from the outside, but do not allow anyone to pull
%changes from it (use the \hook{preoutgoing} hook to lock it down).
%Configure a \hook{changegroup} hook so that if a build or test
%succeeds, the hook will push the new changes out to another repository
%that people \emph{can} pull from.

$B$3$NLdBj$X$N5;=QE*$K:G$b0BA4$J2sEz$O!$(B``$BLgHV(B''$B%j%]%8%H%j$r(B\emph{$B0lJ}8~(B}$B$K(B
$B@_Dj$9$k$3$H$G$"$k!%%j%]%8%H%j$r30It$+$i(Bpush$B$5$l$?JQ99$r<u$1<h$k$,!$C/$b(B
pull$B$G$-$J$$$h$&$K@_Dj$9$k!J(B\hook{preoutgoing}$B%U%C%/$r;H$C$F%j%]%8%H%j$r(B
$B%m%C%/$9$k!K!%(B\hook{changegroup}$B%U%C%/$r@_Dj$7!$%S%k%I$d%F%9%H$,@.8y$7$?(B
$B$H$-$K8B$C$F!$%U%C%/$,?7$?$JJQ99$r%f!<%6$N(Bpull\emph{$B$G$-$k(B}$BJL$N%j%]%8%H(B
$B%j$K(Bpush$B$9$k$h$&$K$9$k!%(B

%In practice, putting a centralised bottleneck like this in place is
%not often a good idea, and transaction visibility has nothing to do
%with the problem.  As the size of a project---and the time it takes to
%build and test---grows, you rapidly run into a wall with this ``try
%before you buy'' approach, where you have more changesets to test than
%time in which to deal with them.  The inevitable result is frustration
%on the part of all involved.

$B<B:]>e$O!$$3$N$h$&$K=8Cf$7$?%\%H%k%M%C%/$rCV$/$3$H$ONI$$9M$($H$O8@$($:!$(B
$B%H%i%s%6%/%7%g%s$N2D;k@-$OA4$/$J$$!%%W%m%8%'%/%H$N%5%$%:$*$h$S%S%k%I$H%F(B
$B%9%H$KMW$9$k;~4V$,A}2C$9$k$K=>$C$F!$$3$N$h$&$J(B``$B;vA0$K;n$9(B''$B<jK!$OJI$KFM(B
$B$-Ev$?$k!%%F%9%H$K;H$($k;~4V$G;+$-@Z$l$J$$$[$I$N%A%'%s%8%;%C%H$r;n$5$J$1(B
$B$l$P$J$i$J$/$J$k$+$i$G$"$k!%%U%i%9%H%l!<%7%g%s$,Cy$k$N$OHr$1$i$l$J$$$@$m(B
$B$&!%(B

%An approach that scales better is to get people to build and test
%before they push, then run automated builds and tests centrally
%\emph{after} a push, to be sure all is well.  The advantage of this
%approach is that it does not impose a limit on the rate at which the
%repository can accept changes.

$B$h$j%9%1!<%k$9$k<jK!$O!$3+H/<T$K(Bpush$BA0$N%S%k%I$H%F%9%H$r$5$;$k$3$H$G$"(B
$B$k!%Cf1{$G<+F0$K$h$k%S%k%I$H%F%9%H$r9T$&$N$O!$(Bpush\emph{$B8e(B}$B$K!$A4$F$KLdBj(B
$B$,$J$$$3$H$r3NG'$9$k$?$a$K9T$&!%$3$N%"%W%m!<%A$NMxE@$O%j%]%8%H%j$,JQ99$r(B
$B<u$1F~$l$k%Z!<%9$K2?$b@)8B$r2]$5$J$$$3$H$G$"$k!%(B

%\section{A short tutorial on using hooks}
\section{$B%U%C%/$N;HMQK!(B}
\label{sec:hook:simple}

838:d1f676a6a4b3

$BB?$/$N%f!<%6$,(Bpull$B$9$k%5!<%P$KC/$+$,%A%'%s%8%;%C%H$r(Bpush$B$7$?>l9g!$%5!<%P(B
$B$O%A%'%s%8%;%C%H$r915WE*$K<u$1F~$l$kA0$K%A%'%C%/$r9T$$!$0lO"$N%F%9%H$r%Q(B
$B%9$G$-$J$1$l$P%j%8%'%/%H$r9T$&!%%f!<%6$,$3$N%U%#%k%?%5!<%P$+$i$N$_(Bpull$B$r(B
$B9T$&$N$G$"$l$P!$A4$F$NJQ99$O<+F0E*$KA4$F8!::$5$l$F$$$k$3$H$K$J$k!%(B

%\section{A short tutorial on using hooks}
\section{$B%U%C%/$N;HMQK!(B}
\label{sec:hook:simple}