# Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission 6 messages from 2014-08-19 to 2014-08-20. Participants: Babak M, Jeff King, Junio C Hamano, Chris Packham. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/37374 ## Babak M, 2014-08-19 06:05 Subject: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAPyMVO%2Ba%2BR-%2BUDVuNSfhyB%3DPX-NUZbt6VGXfOv19-mDKTqfj6g%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hi, I saw that if a hook file is present in .git/hooks and it does not have execution permissions it is silently ignored. I thought it might be worthwhile issuing a warning such as "Warning: pre-commit hook exists but it cannot be executed due to insufficient permissions". Not sure if this has been discussed before. I searched the archive but didn't see anything. Thoughts, suggestions? Is there anything like that already? Cheers, Babak ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-08-19 08:00 Subject: Re: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: <20140819080002.GB7712@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20140819080002.GB7712%40peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 04:05:21PM +1000, Babak M wrote: > I saw that if a hook file is present in .git/hooks and it does not > have execution permissions it is silently ignored. > > I thought it might be worthwhile issuing a warning such as "Warning: > pre-commit hook exists but it cannot be executed due to insufficient > permissions". > > Not sure if this has been discussed before. I searched the archive but > didn't see anything. > > Thoughts, suggestions? Is there anything like that already? Once upon a time we shipped sample hooks with their execute bits turned off, and such a warning would have been very bad. These days we give them a ".sample" extension (because Windows installs had trouble with the execute bit :) ), so I think it should be OK in theory. Installing a new version of git on top of an old one with "make install" does not clean up old files. So somebody who has continuously upgraded their git via "make install" to the same directory would have the old-style sample files. Under your proposal, they would get a lot of warnings. However, that change came in v1.6.0, just over 6 years ago. We can probably discount that (and if it does happen, maybe it is time for that someone to clean up the other leftover cruft from past git installs). -Peff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-08-19 16:52 Subject: Re: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqegwcwhfc.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20140819080002.GB7712@peff.net> ``` Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 04:05:21PM +1000, Babak M wrote: > >> I saw that if a hook file is present in .git/hooks and it does not >> have execution permissions it is silently ignored. >> >> I thought it might be worthwhile issuing a warning such as "Warning: >> pre-commit hook exists but it cannot be executed due to insufficient >> permissions". >> >> Not sure if this has been discussed before. I searched the archive but >> didn't see anything. >> >> Thoughts, suggestions? Is there anything like that already? > > Once upon a time we shipped sample hooks with their execute bits turned > off, and such a warning would have been very bad. > > These days we give them a ".sample" extension (because Windows installs > had trouble with the execute bit :) ), so I think it should be OK in > theory. Installing a new version of git on top of an old one with "make > install" does not clean up old files. So somebody who has continuously > upgraded their git via "make install" to the same directory would have > the old-style sample files. Under your proposal, they would get a lot of > warnings. > > However, that change came in v1.6.0, just over 6 years ago. We can > probably discount that (and if it does happen, maybe it is time for that > someone to clean up the other leftover cruft from past git installs). The above all sounds very sensible. We have another code path that looks for an executable, finds one with no execute permission and decides not to execute it, and I wonder if we should use the same criteria to decide to give (or not give) a warning as the one used in the other code path (i.e. looking up "git-foo" executable when the user runs "git foo"). ``` ## Chris Packham, 2014-08-20 08:55 Subject: Re: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAFOYHZCGQj1vaZfOpFXHpuf-OjTB5RXRN_37O2EkQFRvow-RfA%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 04:05:21PM +1000, Babak M wrote: >> >>> I saw that if a hook file is present in .git/hooks and it does not >>> have execution permissions it is silently ignored. >>> >>> I thought it might be worthwhile issuing a warning such as "Warning: >>> pre-commit hook exists but it cannot be executed due to insufficient >>> permissions". >>> >>> Not sure if this has been discussed before. I searched the archive but >>> didn't see anything. >>> >>> Thoughts, suggestions? Is there anything like that already? >> >> Once upon a time we shipped sample hooks with their execute bits turned >> off, and such a warning would have been very bad. >> >> These days we give them a ".sample" extension (because Windows installs >> had trouble with the execute bit :) ), so I think it should be OK in >> theory. Installing a new version of git on top of an old one with "make >> install" does not clean up old files. So somebody who has continuously >> upgraded their git via "make install" to the same directory would have >> the old-style sample files. Under your proposal, they would get a lot of >> warnings. >> >> However, that change came in v1.6.0, just over 6 years ago. We can >> probably discount that (and if it does happen, maybe it is time for that >> someone to clean up the other leftover cruft from past git installs). > > The above all sounds very sensible. > > We have another code path that looks for an executable, finds one > with no execute permission and decides not to execute it, and I > wonder if we should use the same criteria to decide to give (or not > give) a warning as the one used in the other code path (i.e. looking > up "git-foo" executable when the user runs "git foo"). > -- I actually find the existing behaviour useful. If I want to disable a hook to I can just chmod -x .git/hook/... and I then chmod +x it when I want to re-enable it. I guess I could live with an extra warning as long as the command still succeeds. ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-08-20 10:19 Subject: Re: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: <20140820101921.GA21527@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20140820101921.GA21527%40peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:55:52PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > I actually find the existing behaviour useful. If I want to disable a > hook to I can just chmod -x .git/hook/... and I then chmod +x it when > I want to re-enable it. I guess I could live with an extra warning as > long as the command still succeeds. You could do the same thing "mv $hook $hook.disabled" but it involves retraining your fingers. I kind of agree that the existing system of respecting the executable bit is nice, though: it does what you told it to do, and a misconfiguration is your problem, not the system's. It's perhaps worth changing if people frequently get the executable-bit thing wrong, but I don't know whether they do or not. I kind of feel like we had a similar discussion around items in PATH, but I don't remember how it resolved. -Peff ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-08-20 17:51 Subject: Re: Issuing warning when hook does not have execution permission Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqzjezt5fq.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20140820101921.GA21527@peff.net> ``` Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:55:52PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote: > >> I actually find the existing behaviour useful. If I want to disable a >> hook to I can just chmod -x .git/hook/... and I then chmod +x it when >> I want to re-enable it. I guess I could live with an extra warning as >> long as the command still succeeds. > > You could do the same thing "mv $hook $hook.disabled" but it involves > retraining your fingers. I kind of agree that the existing system of > respecting the executable bit is nice, though: it does what you told it > to do, and a misconfiguration is your problem, not the system's. It's > perhaps worth changing if people frequently get the executable-bit thing > wrong, but I don't know whether they do or not. > > I kind of feel like we had a similar discussion around items in PATH, > but I don't remember how it resolved. I don't either, but IIRC the primary tricky point was what happens when a component of $PATH list is inaccessible, making us unable to even know if an executable we are looking for exists there or not, which is slightly a different issue. And I also kind of agree that the existing system is nice. It may sound like a good idea to warn when there is even a slight chance of misconfiguration on the user's side, but for this particular one, it has been a designed-in behaviour for a long time, and it may be unwise to change it. ```