Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] sequencer: run 'prepare-commit-msg' hook
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@talktalk.net>
- Date
- Jan 25, 2018, 16:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <f4953ce5-0fb2-e1f8-fe07-cd541a53cc4e@talktalk.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqh8rbdqwk.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On 24/01/18 18:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 29 quoted lines
> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/01/18 12:34, Phillip Wood wrote:
>>> From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>>
>>> Commit 356ee4659b ("sequencer: try to commit without forking 'git
>>> commit'", 2017-11-24) forgot to run the 'prepare-commit-msg' hook when
>>> creating the commit. Fix this by writing the commit message to a
>>> different file and running the hook. Using a different file means that
>>> if the commit is cancelled the original message file is
>>> unchanged. Also move the checks for an empty commit so the order
>>> matches 'git commit'.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
>>
>> Echoing Eric's earlier email, I don't think this Reviewed-by is
>> warranted - I only requested the addition of a static keyword,
>> I didn't actually review the patch.
>
> Thanks for clarification, and I tend to agree. You, Eric and I
> certainly did not review what is posted here, so if I "git am" these
> patches as-is, we'd be lying.
>
> Having said that, I think this round takes all the review comments
> raised against the previous round(s) into account. So I'm tempted
> to tweak them with s/Reviewed-/Helped-/ and queue.
> Thanks Junio, I wasn't sure whether to go with Reviewed-by or Helped-by, I'll know for next time
Best Wishes
Phillip