Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Multiple hook support

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:09:10AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > To preserve backwards compatibility, we don't run the hooks in the ".d"
> > directory if the single file is a valid hook (i.e. it exists and is
> > executable). This is because some people already have multiple hook
> > scripts configured, and if we ran them both, we'd run the hooks twice.
> > This would be bad for e.g. the prepare-commit-msg hook. This is also the
> > least surprising behavior.
> OK.  An obvious alternative may be to see if the expected hooks path
> is a directory and use the contents.  If ".git/hooks/pre-commit" is
> a single file, we know it is the single hook as before, and if it is
> a directory, we know that is not a custom made (i.e. from the world
> before this series supported in the core-git) multi-hook setup.

That's an idea I hadn't considered. I'm interested to hear other folks'
ideas on it, but that certainly avoids a lot of the problems in my

> > We check each hook for its exit status, even if the hook normally
> > ignores exit status, and if it fails, we abort executing further hooks.
> This part may become the most controversial in the whole topic, but
> a design discussion is helped by having a concrete proposal that
> makes its own design decision, and this is the simplest design of
> the failure case that is the easiest to understand.

I expected it might be. I'm not strongly wedded to it, so if people make
a good argument for something else, I'm okay with changing it.
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature