Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] refs: add 'preparing' phase to the reference-transaction hook
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Mar 16, 2026, 07:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <aberRbSCbMtZrqxk@pks.im>
- In-Reply-To
- <20260316045102.70551-1-eric.peijian@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:51:01AM -0400, Eric Ju wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> 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 serializationAll 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.
Show 15 quoted lines
> 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