Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Multiple hook support

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: May 14, 2019, 13:30 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DH5MzqM+8sn7Wi04KxUTxJjnWhEBMk2RVrXUDMwB9sTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190514002332.121089-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:23 AM brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

>
> This series introduces multiple hook support.
>
> I've thought a lot about the discussion over whether this series should
> use the configuration as the source for multiple hooks. Ultimately, I've
> come to the decision that it's not a good idea. Even adopting the empty
> entry as a reset marker, the fact that inheritance in the configuration
> is in-order and can't be easily modified means that it's not likely to
> be very useful, but it is likely to be quite surprising for the average
> user.

Can we just do like we do with hooks-in-directory? Ignore the config variable order. Sort them all alphabetically. The user then has to prefix a number or something to control order. Easier transition from hooks-in-dir to hooks-in-config too.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I think a solution that sticks with the existing model and builds
> off a design used by other systems people are familiar with, like cron
> and run-parts, is going to be a better choice. Moreover, this is the
> design that people have already built with outside tooling, which is a
> further argument in favor of it.

-- 
Duy