From: Shawn O. Pearce Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:34:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Teach receive-pack to run pre-receive/post-receive hooks Message-ID: <20070308033434.GA29567@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: <7vbqj4eh9h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Junio C Hamano wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Can you give a concise explanation of how "pre-receive" differ from the > > old "update", and how does "post-receive" differ from the old > > "post-update"? > > They are somewhat redundant. They get everything at once, > unlike update hook. Also unlike update hook, pre-receive rejects or accepts the entire batch of refs and cannot reject an individual ref update. I would have removed post-update, but users depend on it. I would have modified its argument structure to be like post-receive, but again, users might depend on the current argument arrangement. > The old interface is adequate to do the same thing if you > arrange them so that update hook notes which refs (with what old > sha1 value it had) were asked to be updated, and make your > post-update hook (which gets the names of refs) notice if some > of them failed and from what ref a successful update happened. > But getting everything at once is sometimes easier to work > with. Except that doing that is horribly ugly, as there are no locks held by receive-pack to help the hook author, so the hook author must dump that data out to a temporary file and be sure the post-update hook knows which file to look at, which it can't really know... a mess. -- Shawn.