From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] post-checkout hook, and related docs and tests Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:29:07 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4phi5t98.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1190406421-15620-1-git-send-email-jjengla@sandia.gov> <7vzlzfh7xd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1190654052.6078.14.camel@beauty> <7vsl53ap5x.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1190662396.6078.63.camel@beauty> <7vejgnai1z.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1190671558.6078.87.camel@beauty> <7vfy138vql.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <1190738473.6078.102.camel@beauty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Josh England" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 25 23:29:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IaHy3-0001jK-W9 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:29:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754926AbXIYV3J (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:29:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754957AbXIYV3J (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:29:09 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44]:62059 "EHLO fed1rmmtao102.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754452AbXIYV3I (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:29:08 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070925212908.WPPG27287.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:29:08 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.77]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id slV71X0081gtr5g0000000; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:29:07 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Josh England" writes: > So this leads to my next question: Should the post-merge patch be > brought in under this same umbrella to form a single post-checkout hook, > or should it stay a separate hook? I think it is called would be inconvenient for the callee if you call the same hook without telling the hook script why it is called, so if you go in the unification route the caller of the unified hook needs to supply an extra parameter and existing hooks if any need to be updated --- neither sounds like a very idea. The writer of the hooks however can choose to call one from the other if he wants the same action for both hooks, so it looks to me that separate hooks for separate purposes is the way to go.