Re: [PATCH 4/9] hook: treat hookdir hook specially

> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:58:34AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 15 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote:
>> 
>> > Soon, we will allow users to specify hooks using the config. These
>> > config-specified hooks may require different child_process options than
>> > hook executables in the gitdir. So, let's differentiate between hooks
>> > coming from the gitdir and hooks coming from the config.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
>> > ---
>> >  hook.c | 3 ++-
>> >  hook.h | 2 ++
>> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/hook.c b/hook.c
>> > index 19138a8290..3a588cb055 100644
>> > --- a/hook.c
>> > +++ b/hook.c
>> > @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ struct list_head* hook_list(const char* hookname)
>> >  		struct hook *to_add = xmalloc(sizeof(*to_add));
>> >  		to_add->hook_path = hook_path;
>> >  		to_add->feed_pipe_cb_data = NULL;
>> > +		to_add->from_hookdir = 1;
>> >  		list_add_tail(&to_add->list, hook_head);
>> >  	}
>> >  
>> > @@ -200,7 +201,7 @@ static int pick_next_hook(struct child_process *cp,
>> >  	cp->dir = hook_cb->options->dir;
>> >  
>> >  	/* add command */
>> > -	if (hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
>> > +	if (run_me->from_hookdir && hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
>> >  		strvec_push(&cp->args, absolute_path(run_me->hook_path));
>> >  	else
>> >  		strvec_push(&cp->args, run_me->hook_path);
>> > diff --git a/hook.h b/hook.h
>> > index 586ddf40bb..60389cd8cd 100644
>> > --- a/hook.h
>> > +++ b/hook.h
>> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ struct hook {
>> >  	/* The path to the hook */
>> >  	const char *hook_path;
>> >  
>> > +	unsigned from_hookdir : 1;
>> > +
>> >  	/*
>> >  	 * Use this to keep state for your feed_pipe_fn if you are using
>> >  	 * run_hooks_opt.feed_pipe. Otherwise, do not touch it.
>> 
>> The "from_hookdir" looks like it isn't used until 6/9, and maybe the
>> absolute_path change too? In any case this seems like a carried-forward
>> rebase of
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210311021037.3001235-5-emilyshaffer@google.com/
>> or some version thereof.
>> 
>> At this point I tihnk it would be way better to squash this and other
>> such changes that basically add a field to a struct that isn't used yet
>> into whatever commit use/need them.
>
> I think at this point we run into you and me having different
> patch-storytelling styles - which probably is what led to the big topic
> restart in the first place ;)
>
> I'd prefer to see the "start using config too" patch stay as small as it
> can; that's why I ended up with a handful of minor setup commits and
> then one "and now here's config" commit.
>
> Even if it's different from how you would tell it - is it wrong? (And if
> it is, that's fine, and I'll change it, but I don't think it is - that's
> why I structured the series this way.)