From: Patrick Steinhardt Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 07:03:33 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] refs: add 'preparing' phase to the reference-transaction hook Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260316045102.70551-1-eric.peijian@gmail.com> 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