Re: [TOPIC 2/17] Hooks in the future

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 15, 2020, 22:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20200415224244.GB3595509@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200415034550.GB36683@google.com>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 08:45:50PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> > Yeah, I do see how that use case makes sense. I wonder how common it is
> > versus having separate one-off hooks.
> 
> I think separately from the frequency question, we should look at the
> "what model do we want to present to the user" question.

I sort of agree. The mental model is important, but we should avoid presenting a model that is overly complex to a user who only wants to do simple things. So how common that simple thing is impacts the answer to your question.

Show 6 quoted lines

> [...]
> What I mean to get at is that I think thinking of them in terms of
> individual hooks, the user model assumed by these programs is to think
> of them as plugins hooking into Git.  The individual hooks are events
> that the plugin listens on.  If I am trying to disable a plugin, I
> don't want to have to learn which events it cared about.

Sure, I agree that's a perfectly reasonable mental model. But for somebody who just wants to do a one-off hook, they're now saddled with a thing they don't care about: defining a plugin group for their hook.

The examples you gave are all reasonable, but personally I've never used anything other than one-off hooks.

On the other hand, I've very rarely used hooks at all myself.

To be clear, I don't _really_ care all that much, and this isn't a hill I particularly care to die on. I was mostly just clarifying my earlier suggestion. (I _am_ somewhat amazed that the simple concept of "I would like to run this shell command instead of $GIT_DIR/hooks/foo" has generated so much discussion. So really I am in favor of whatever lets me stop thinking about this as soon as possible).

Show 11 quoted lines

> >                                       And whether setting the order
> > priority for all hooks at once is that useful (e.g., I can easily
> > imagine a case where the pre-commit hook for program A must go before B,
> > but it's the other way around for another hook).
> 
> This I agree about.  Actually I'm skeptical about ordering
> dependencies being something that is meaningful for users to work with
> in general, except in the case of closely cooperating hook authors.
>
> That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to futureproof for that, but I
> don't think we need to overfit on it.

I share that skepticism (and also agree that avoiding painting ourselves into a corner is the main thing).

Show 7 quoted lines

> >>> And it doesn't leave a lot of room for defining
> >>> per-hook-type options; you have to make new keys like pre-push-order
> >>> (though that does work because the hook names are a finite set that
> >>> conforms to our config key names).
> 
> Exactly: field names like prePushOrder should work okay, even if
> they're a bit noisy.

A side note:

Here you've done a custom munging of pre-push into prePush. I'm fine with that, but would we ever want to allow third-party scripts to define their own hooks using this mechanism? E.g., if there's a git-hooks command could I run "git hooks run foo" to run the foo hook? If so, then it might be simpler to just use the name as-is rather than defining the exact munging rules.

-Peff