Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] refs: add 'preparing' phase to the reference-transaction hook

>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:51:01AM -0400, Eric Ju wrote:
> > Changes since v1:
> >
> > - Fix commit title to follow "area: description" convention
> >   ("refs: add 'preparing' phase to reference-transaction hook")
> > - Correct phase names in documentation to past tense
> >   ("committed", "aborted")
> > - Fix the sentence about backwards compatibility with unknown phases
> > - Update die() messages to identify the hook by full name and phase
> >   ("ref updates rejected by the reference-transaction hook at its
> >   preparing/prepared phase")
> > - Consolidate author identity to eric.peijian@gmail.com
> > - Add clarification in reply to the question about how to use the preparing
> >   phase for write serialization
>
> All of these changes look good to me, thanks. This patch already looks
> good to me, but I'm of course biased as I have been helping out behind
> the scenes before the first version of this patch landed on the mailing
> list.
>
> > Range-diff against v1:
> > 1:  5f9f13a84d ! 1:  fb74f21d98 Add preparing state to reference-transaction hook
> >     @@ Commit message
> >          interfering with the locking state.
> >
> >          This change is strictly speaking not backwards compatible. Existing hook
> >     -    scripts that do not know to handle unknown phases handle the "preparing" state
> >     -    string will encounter an unknown phase, and that might cause them to return an
> >     -    error now. But the hook is considered to expose internal implementation details
> >     +    scripts that do not know how to handle unknown phases may treat
> >     +    'preparing' as an error and return non-zero.
> >     +    But the hook is considered to expose internal implementation details
> >          of how Git works, and as such we have been a bit more lenient with changing its
> >          exact semantics, like for example in a8ae923f85 (refs: support symrefs in
> >          'reference-transaction' hook, 2024-05-07).
>
> One micro-nit: this paragraph could use some reflowing. But I don't
> think it's worth a reroll.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrick