Re: [PATCH 03/10] hook: convert 'post-rewrite' hook in sequencer.c to hook.h
- From
Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com>
- Date
- Sep 26, 2025, 12:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87bjmxo0r2.fsf@collabora.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8qi2ffv6.fsf@gitster.g>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2025, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 37 quoted lines
> Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> writes: > >> From: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> >> >> By using 'hook.h' for 'post-rewrite', we simplify hook >> invocations by > > This "By using 'hook.h" is somewhat a strange thing to say. > <hook.h> has been in use by the file (evidenced by the fact that > there is no new "#include <hook.h>" in the patch). I haven't > carefully read other steps in this series, but from my quick > skimming of them, I got an impression that this comment may > apply equally to other steps as well. > > What the commit does is not "use hook.h"; it is to replace a > custom run-command call with a call to run_hooks_opt(). The > shared API service function may happen to be declared in > <hook.h>, that that is secondary piece of information. > >> not needing to put together our own 'struct child_process'. > > Imperative? I think just dropping "we" would be sufficient. > >> The signal handling that's being removed by this commit now >> takes place in run-command.h:run_processes_parallel(), so it is >> OK to remove them here. > > Phrase it more positively, instead of "it is OK" (which sounds > like it is also OK to leave it there). Perhaps say something > like: > > Another benefit we gain from using run_hook_opt() instead of > a custom start_command()/finish_command() invocations is > that the hook API handles with sigpipe itself, so we no > longer need to toggle signals ourselves. > > or something like that, perhaps.
Ack, will reword in v2. I actually inherited this message and thought about rewording it as well :). Some others I already reworded in v1.