From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow update hooks to update refs on their own Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:00:55 -0800 Message-ID: <7vmysy5h5k.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20071127211730.GA11861@midwinter.com> <7v4pf7b20b.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <49EB8C6F-8100-48C1-BB2D-A8F6023BACAD@midwinter.com> <20071128161033.GA20308@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Barkalow , Steven Grimm , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 28 20:01:37 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 1IxSA3-0007Yg-Bp for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:01:27 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758455AbXK1TBH (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758242AbXK1TBG (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:06 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:35745 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758126AbXK1TBE (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:04 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158582F9; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803AF9AB32; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071128161033.GA20308@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:10:34 -0500") 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: Jeff King writes: >> Couldn't you do this with a status message? ("ok changed by >> hook" or something.) > > Having just touched this code, I believe the answer is yes. receive-pack > has always sent just "ok \n", so we could start interpreting > anything after the bit freely... More importantly, no send-pack choked on "ok " followed by a SP (old ones just checked "ok" and nothing else, the current one NULs out the SP and lets you use the rest as a message), so such a change to receive-pack does not have to break older send-pack.