From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH-v4 4/4] git-commit: add a prepare-commit-msg hook Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:08:00 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy79y1mhb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v1w7q4khm.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Paolo Bonzini X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 06 10:08:54 2008 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 1JMgGu-0004df-9h for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:08:48 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759814AbYBFJIO (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:08:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759906AbYBFJIN (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:08:13 -0500 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:59721 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759761AbYBFJIK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:08:10 -0500 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEC2192236; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DA4192065; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:08:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:04:18 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Paolo Bonzini writes: > The way it can be used instead of the pre-commit hook > is now documented differently: it is for verification > that must *not* be skipped even for automatic commits > (if there is such a beast). I really do not think we should encourage this as a verification method. If you encourage it as such, I am sure people would complain "Why can't I bypass this hook with --no-verify!!!". I do not want to spend cycles defending the behaviour to error out on non-zero exit from the hook. Instead, I think you should _stress_ that people must _NOT_ use this as a replacement for pre-commit hook. The same comment applies to the comment in the example hook.