Re: [RTC/PATCH] Add 'update-branch' hook

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 23, 2014, 21:30 UTC
Message-ID: <53583111dd8ad_24448772ec17@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtx9m70fh.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > ... there are _already_ hooks without pre/post.
> 
> Like commit-msg?  Yes, it would have been nicer if it were named
> verify-commit-message or something.

No it wouldn't. I can use the commit-msg hook to change the commit message and to absolutely no verification, so verify-commit-message would be misleading.

Maybe you would like modify-and-or-verify-commit-message which would be correct, but I wouldn't, I like short-and-sweet, and commit-msg is just that.

> Old mistakes are harder to change because of inertia.  It is not a
> good excuse to knowingly make a new mistake to add new exceptions
> that the users need to check documentations for, is it?

That's a nifty trick; label something a mistake, and then it suddenly becomes one.

No, it's not a mistake, first it has to be proven to be mistake and I haven't seen any arguments that try to do so.

Besides it's a red herring, you said such a name would be original and I've just proved that it's not original, so the originality is not a concern.

> > And it's not confusing,
> 
> A simple fact that Ilya asked the question tells us otherwise ;-)

It's not any more confusing than these:

applypatch-msg:

When does this happen? Can I return an error?

pre-applypatch:

Again when does it happen? What does the input contains? The whole patch? Including the message?

post-applypatch:

Totally confused.

pre-commit: prepare-commit-msg: commit-msg:

What is the difference between these? Doesn't pre-commit contains the message already?

pre-receive:

Before receiving what?

update:

Updating what? When is it called? Can I cancel something?

The fact that somebody asked a question doesn't make a name confusing.

> I personally do not see an immediate need for post-update-branch,
> but if the new hook is about intervening an operation,

It's not about that, I can remove that feature if it would make you happier.

> Otherwise it would be impossible to later add "post-update-branch"

Which is never going to happen.

I'm still waiting for anybody to imagine any reason why we might want post-udpate-branch.

-- 
Felipe Contreras