From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Benoit Pierre <benoit.pierre@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] commit: fix patch hunk editing with "commit -p -m"
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:47:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqeh2fvw1h.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr46fvx39.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 06 Mar 2014 13:25:14 -0800")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Name it run_hook_le() (name modelled after execle()), and call it in
> your change where you add new calls to this function, and add a thin
> wrapper run_hook() that preserves the traditional "We can pass only
> the index-file" for new callers we do not even know about on the
> topics in flight.
>
> Later we can eradicate callers of run_hook() that treats the index-file
> specially, which was a grave mistake in a public API.
I am also OK if the patch _removed_ run_hook() and renamed the one
with the current semantics to run_hook_with_custom_index() or
something.
It would allow us to catch any in-flight topic we do not know about
that adds a call to run_hook() expecting that it would take a custom
index file. We will see a link failure, and then we can evil-merge
to update such a callsite to call run_hook_with_custom_index().
An updated run_hook() with different function signature (which is
in this patch) will also let us notice, but the evil-merge to fix
the resulting mess will have to be larger than necessary, which is
not what we want.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-06 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-06 14:50 [PATCH 0/6] fix hunk editing with 'commit -p -m' Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] test patch hunk editing with "commit -p -m" Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 22:07 ` Eric Sunshine
2014-03-06 23:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 2/6] commit: fix " Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 21:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 21:47 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 3/6] merge: fix GIT_EDITOR override for commit hook Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 4/6] merge hook tests: fix and update tests Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 22:11 ` Eric Sunshine
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 5/6] merge hook tests: fix missing '&&' in test Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 21:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 14:50 ` [PATCH 6/6] merge hook tests: use 'test_must_fail' instead of '!' Benoit Pierre
2014-03-06 21:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-07 0:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 21:15 ` [PATCH 0/6] fix hunk editing with 'commit -p -m' Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqeh2fvw1h.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=benoit.pierre@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.