Re: [PATCH v3] run-command: add hint when a hook is ignored

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 11, 2017, 06:26 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmv4ymc7w.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy3ojpr9f.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Quite honestly, I do not particulary think this is confusing, and I
> expect that this change will irritate many people by forcing them to
> either set the advise config or move the ones that they deliberately
> left unexecutable by renaming them by adding ".disabled" at the end.
>
> But these remedies are easy enough, so let's see how well it works
> by merging it to 'next' and cooking it there for a while.

Well, it turns out that I am among those who are irritated, as all the repositories I work with were rather old, dating back to 2005, back when it was a norm to have these sample files installed without executable bit, to make it easy for those who choose to use them as-is to enable them by flipping the executable bit.

And I do not find the advice.ignoredhook is giving particularly a good piece of advice. I suspect that it would be a better practice to rename a disabled foo-hook to foo-hook.disabled if the user wants to squelch the warning. It gives them a final chance to review what they left disabled for all these years, and then choose to either remove it, or rename it to foo-hook.disabled. "ls .git/hooks/" will then make it clear which ones are disabled without the "-F" option, which is an additional benefit.

Anyway, I am not merging this topic to the upcoming release, so hopefully we'll hear from others who try 'next'.

Thanks.