Re: RFC: Supporting .git/hooks/$NAME.d/* && /etc/git/hooks/$NAME.d/*

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> I think it's fair enough to say that if we had this facility this
> would be good enough:
>
>  * Your hooks are executed in glob() order, local .git first, then /etc/git/...
>
>  * If it's a hook like pre-commit that can reject something the first
> hook to fail short-circuits. I.e. none of the rest get executed.
>
>  * If it's not a hook like that e.g. post-commit all of the hooks will
> get executed.
>
>  * If you need anything more complex you can just wrap your hooks in
> your own shellscript.
>
> I.e. it takes care of the common case where:
>
>  * You just want to execute N hooks and don't want to write a wrapper.
>
>  * For pre-* hooks the common case is it doesn't matter /what/
> rejected things, just that it gets rejected, e.g. for pre-receive.
> Also if you care about performance you can order them in
> cheapest-first order.

Stop using the word "common" to describe what is not demonstratably
"common".

The above only covers a very limited subset of the use cases, which
is the two bullet points above (one of them i.e. "I do not bother to
write a wrapper" is not even a valid use case).  That may be a good
starting point, but it is so simple that can be done with a wrapper
with several lines at most.  So I am not sympathetic to that line of
reasoning at all.

I can buy "It is too cumbersome to require everybody to reinvent and
script the cascading logic, and the core side should help by giving
a standard interface that is flexible enough to suit people's need",
though.

And I have to say that a sequential execution that always
short-circuits at the first failure is below that threshold.

One reason I care about allowing the users to specify "do not
shortcut" is that I anticipate that people would want to have a
logging of the result at the end of the chain.