Re: [PATCH 1/5] run-command: add preliminary support for multiple hooks

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2019, 00:55 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo94uzyxa.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <8f79d251-58d9-f63b-7171-7f1fbd11c6f9@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

> Furthermore, basing a decision on whether a file is executable won't
> work on Windows as intended. So, it is better to aim for an existence check.

That is a good point.

So it may be OK for "do we have a single hook script for this hook name?" to say "no" when the path exists but not executable on POSIXPERM systems, but it is better to say "yes" for consistency across platforms (I think that is one of the reasons why we use .sample suffix these days).

And for the same reason, for the purpose of deciding "because we do not have a single hook script, let's peek into .d directory ourselves", mere presence of the file with that name, regardless of the executable bit, should signal that we should not handle the .d directory.

IOW, you think access(X_OK) should be more like access(F_OK)?