Re: [PATCH v4] Allow update hooks to update refs on their own.

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 2, 2007, 21:56 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwsrwu5fs.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071202212224.GA22117@midwinter.com>

Steven Grimm <koreth@midwinter.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> +The hook may optionally choose to update the ref on its own, e.g.,
> +if it needs to modify incoming revisions in some way. If it updates
> +the ref, it should exit with a status of 100.  The hook should exit
> +with a status between 1 and 99 if it wants to disallow updating the
> +named ref.  Otherwise it should exit with zero, and the ref will be
> +updated automatically.

This makes one wonder what happens if it returns 101, iow if there is difference between returning 99 and 101, and if so why.

Show 8 quoted lines

> +Remote Tracking Refs
> +--------------------
> +
> +After successfully sending a pack to the remote, 'git-send-pack'
> +updates the corresponding remote tracking ref in the local repository
> +to point to the same commit as was just sent to the remote side. In
> +most cases this eliminates the need to subsequently fetch from the
> +remote repository since there would be nothing new to fetch.

Micronit. The above is all "if exists". Not everybody pushes to somewhere he uses tracking with.

Show 10 quoted lines

> @@ -70,8 +73,11 @@ static struct command *commands;
>  static const char pre_receive_hook[] = "hooks/pre-receive";
>  static const char post_receive_hook[] = "hooks/post-receive";
>  
> -static int hook_status(int code, const char *hook_name)
> +static int hook_status(int code, const char *hook_name, int ok_start)
>  {
> +	if (ok_start && -code >= ok_start)
> +		return -code;
> +

I've always been puzzled by this "ok_start" parameter from the very beginning edition of your patch. It is not like "if this is true, then it is ok to run the hook but otherwise do not run". In layman's terms, what does the parameter mean?

Maybe the variable is misnamed and not expressing the concept well enough. Maybe the concept itself is muddy and hard to understand. I cannot tell.