coupled to git about concrete

[ryankee]

Hmmm, I can certainly see the benefit, but most of the app's use cases are directly tied to the idea of having a repo -- checking out clean code, building, etc.

A move to decouple git would be a pretty big shift in how the app operates, though it's a shift I've been contemplating. We'd likely want to move to the approach of storing a Concrete file in the project's directory with configuration options for SCM, build runners, pre-build runners, completion runners, etc. It'd certainly be a non-backwards compatible change and require new steps to setup a Concrete server. Would anyone be for/against this kind of approach?

As for the workaround flag, I'm not sure we'd be able to provide something like --run due to the reliance on git hooks and configuration variables. We'd have to set up a few other flags to handle completion runners, etc.

[tj]

It's a great shift IMO, git has nothing to do with deploys at all

[deedubs]

I don't think having a file to config concrete would be a bad thing

concrete.json

{
  command: 'make test',
  success: 'make deploy',
  fail: 'make shame'
}