Re: [PATCH 1/1] respect core.hooksPath, falling back to .git/hooks
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Sep 30, 2019, 09:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1909301139460.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <20190927130539.52oir56byuedqmm3@yadavpratyush.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
Show 75 quoted lines
> On 27/09/19 08:10AM, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:40 AM Pratyush Yadav <me@yadavpratyush.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26/09/19 02:17PM, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
> > > >
> > > > Since v2.9.0, Git knows about the config variable core.hookspath
> > > > that allows overriding the path to the directory containing the
> > > > Git hooks.
> > > >
> > > > Since v2.10.0, the `--git-path` option respects that config
> > > > variable, too, so we may just as well use that command.
> > > >
> > > > For Git versions older than v2.5.0 (which was the first version to
> > > > support the `--git-path` option for the `rev-parse` command), we
> > > > simply fall back to the previous code.
> > > >
> > > > This fixes https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/1755
> > > >
> > > > Initial-patch-by: Philipp Gortan <philipp@gortan.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > > > ---
> > > > git-gui.sh | 6 +++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/git-gui.sh b/git-gui.sh
> > > > index fd476b6999..b2c6e7a1db 100755
> > > > --- a/git-gui.sh
> > > > +++ b/git-gui.sh
> > > > @@ -623,7 +623,11 @@ proc git_write {args} {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > proc githook_read {hook_name args} {
> > > > - set pchook [gitdir hooks $hook_name]
> > > > + if {[package vcompare $::_git_version 2.5.0] >= 0} {
> > > > + set pchook [git rev-parse --git-path "hooks/$hook_name"]
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + set pchook [gitdir hooks $hook_name]
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > gitdir is used in a lot of places, and I think all those would also
> > > benefit from using --git-path. So I think it is a better idea to move
> > > this to the procedure gitdir. It would have to be refactored to take any
> > > number of arguments, instead of the two it takes here.
> >
> > gitdir already takes an arbitrary number of arguments and joins them
> > to a path. The more imminent challenge is, that gitdir caches the
> > GIT_DIR, thus it tries to avoid calling "git rev-parse". Which works
> > for most, but not for hooks.
>
> What I was thinking of was something like this:
>
> - If no args are passed, then just directly return $_gitdir. This is
> already being done. I assume the GIT_DIR relocation is already
> handled by `git rev-parse --git-dir`, so this would point to the
> correct location.
> - If args are passed, then we want a subdirectory of GIT_DIR In this
> case, it is possible that this subdirectory has also been relocated
> (hooks/ being one of those subdirectories). So in this case, use
> `git rev-parse --git-path` instead.
>
> So the gitdir procedure would look something like:
>
> proc gitdir {args} {
> global $_gitdir
> if {$args eq {}} {
> # Return the cached GIT_DIR
> return $_gitdir
> }
>
> # Use `git rev-parse --git-path` to get the path instead of
> # using the cached value.
> }
>
> Am I missing something? Or does this fix the issue you describe?The `gitdir` function is called 13 times during startup alone, and who knows how many more times later.
So I am quite convinced that the original intention was to save on spawning processes left and right.
But since you are the Git GUI maintainer, and this was your suggestion, I made it so.
Ciao, Johannes
Show 14 quoted lines
> > We could either maintain a blacklist, for what we cache the result > > too, or always call "git rev-parse --git-dir". > > > > This blacklist would need to be in sync with the one in Git's > > path.c::adjust_git_path() than. > > Is caching GIT_DIR that important in terms of performance? Otherwise, > I'd say calling `git rev-parse --git-path` for _every_ subdirectory of > GIT_DIR is a much simpler solution. > > -- > Regards, > Pratyush Yadav >