Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] Teach receive-pack not to run update hook for corrupt/non existent ref

[Pang Yan Han <pangyanhan@gmail.com>]

Hi Junio,

Should I reroll this patch with this behaviour:

- Everything as usual for valid ref updates and deletes
- For deleting corrupt (dangling?) ref, post-receive and post-update hooks
  also receive the same args as per valid update / delete
- For deleting non-existent refs:
  - post-receive shall have empty stdin for those refs
  - post-update shall have an empty arg for those refs

Thanks.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:04:24PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>> In that case (if "non-existent-ref" was indeed non-existent, and not just
> >>> pointing at a dangling commit), I would say the post anything hook should
> >>> not be called for that ref. These hooks of course need to run if there
> >>> are _other_ refs that were updated, though, to handle these _other_ refs,
> >>> but I do not think they should be told about the no-op.
> >>
> >> Question is what happens if none of them existed.  It's a difference
> >> between not calling the hook at all, versus calling it with no
> >> arguments/empty stdin (as the case may be) -- which would you do?
> >
> > In case it was unclear, I was trying to say the hooks should not run with
> > empty input.
> 
> If the purpose of "post-update" (or "post-receive") hooks were to trigger
> every time anybody attempted to push into the repository, then it would
> make perfect sense for them to trigger when "push origin :no-such-branch"
> were attempted. But if that were the purpose of these hooks, they should
> also trigger when "push origin master" is run and "master" is already at
> the right commit, as that is the same kind of no-op -- the pushed into
> repository was already up-to-date with respect to the wish of the pusher.
> 
> I do not mind, and I do prefer, these hooks to run when somebody deleted
> an existing ref that points at a corrupt or non-existent object, as that
> is _not_ a no-op but is a meaningful event that has an effect that is
> observable from the outside world (e.g. ls-remote).