# hooks/post-update execs git-update-server-info

3 messages from 2008-12-15 to 2008-12-16. Participants: Sitaram Chamarty, Jakub Narebski.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/16737

## Sitaram Chamarty, 2008-12-15 16:18

Subject: hooks/post-update execs git-update-server-info
Message-ID: <gi600m$tts$2@ger.gmane.org>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/gi600m%24tts%242%40ger.gmane.org

```
shouldn't .git/hooks/post-update contain "exec git
update-server-info" (note the space not hyphen) instead of
"exec git-update-server-info"?

Either I am horribly confused or HTTP pulls have not been
working on post 1.6 gits and no one has noticed till now :-)

```

## Jakub Narebski, 2008-12-15 17:06

Subject: Re: hooks/post-update execs git-update-server-info
Message-ID: <m3zlixcqrb.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/m3zlixcqrb.fsf%40localhost.localdomain
In-Reply-To: <gi600m$tts$2@ger.gmane.org>

```
Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

> shouldn't .git/hooks/post-update contain "exec git
> update-server-info" (note the space not hyphen) instead of
> "exec git-update-server-info"?
> 
> Either I am horribly confused or HTTP pulls have not been
> working on post 1.6 gits and no one has noticed till now :-)

If I understand correctly hooks run with GIT_EXEC_PATH prepended to
PATH, so everything should work; and it has to work to not force users
to upgrade their (perhaps customized) hooks after upgrading git.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

```

## Sitaram Chamarty, 2008-12-16 01:27

Subject: Re: hooks/post-update execs git-update-server-info
Message-ID: <slrngke0vs.9c3.sitaramc@atcmail.atc.tcs.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/slrngke0vs.9c3.sitaramc%40atcmail.atc.tcs.com
In-Reply-To: <m3zlixcqrb.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

```
On 2008-12-15, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

>> shouldn't .git/hooks/post-update contain "exec git
>> update-server-info" (note the space not hyphen) instead of

> If I understand correctly hooks run with GIT_EXEC_PATH prepended to
> PATH, so everything should work; and it has to work to not force users

you're right -- it does.  There was something else wrong in
my quick-and-dirty testing that caused me to jump to the
wrong conclusion; sorry for the noise!

```
