From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pre-commit hook updates Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:56:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20141126185610.GA1734@peff.net> References: <20141126045246.GD15252@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=98ystein?= Walle , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 26 19:56:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XthlA-00059z-TR for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:56:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751186AbaKZS4N convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:56:13 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:45378 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750780AbaKZS4M (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:56:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 30193 invoked by uid 102); 26 Nov 2014 18:56:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:56:12 -0600 Received: (qmail 9331 invoked by uid 107); 26 Nov 2014 18:56:11 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:56:11 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:56:11 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:35:22AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I _think_ "give only info that is necessary" is cleaner as an > interface in theory, but have two niggles myself: >=20 > 1. the hooks must do the "argument parsing" loop (you already > mentioned this); >=20 > 2. the hooks cannot tell if the lack of "amending" argument is > because the version of Git predates that "amending" hint > support, or because the user action is a straight "commit" not > an "commit --amend". >=20 > In any case, I do not have strong preference myself. That agrees with my thinking exactly. At this point since both of us seem on the fence, I am happy to let =C3=98ystein, as the person who is actually writing the patch, decide. -Peff