From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 19:40:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] run-command: add preliminary support for multiple hooks
Message-ID: <2a511c3c-ef8d-07c5-80e2-398780ee6ed4@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo94uzyxa.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Am 25.04.19 um 02:55 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:
> 
>> Furthermore, basing a decision on whether a file is executable won't
>> work on Windows as intended. So, it is better to aim for an existence check.
> 
> That is a good point.
> 
> So it may be OK for "do we have a single hook script for this hook
> name?" to say "no" when the path exists but not executable on
> POSIXPERM systems, but it is better to say "yes" for consistency
> across platforms (I think that is one of the reasons why we use
> .sample suffix these days).

All correct.

> And for the same reason, for the purpose of deciding "because we do
> not have a single hook script, let's peek into .d directory
> ourselves", mere presence of the file with that name, regardless of
> the executable bit, should signal that we should not handle the .d
> directory.
> 
> IOW, you think access(X_OK) should be more like access(F_OK)?

Yes, that's my conclusion.

-- Hannes