From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-commit: add a prepare-commit-msg hook Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:04:29 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <4790BCED.4050207@gnu.org> <7vbq7ibxhh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <4791C3A8.7000308@gnu.org> <7vd4rw6siv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <479438D1.2050107@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Paolo Bonzini X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 21 12:05:56 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 1JGuTO-0006yR-IP for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:05:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757512AbYAULEr (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:04:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757417AbYAULEr (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:04:47 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59902 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757357AbYAULEq (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:04:46 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2008 11:04:44 -0000 Received: from host86-138-198-40.range86-138.btcentralplus.com (EHLO racer.home) [86.138.198.40] by mail.gmx.net (mp057) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2008 12:04:44 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19jgwpum9lj/zEzlo9vB7rRn3gcpqn1qdZAnqUNcu 1qlzciyEw8YdzQ X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <479438D1.2050107@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > I would like to understand why both of you have not considered the point > that the script would need the updated index from git-commit. I have. But I want to avoid a regression at any cost. And your patch just looks to me like it could do that. But it _has_ been already suggested that you could provide arguments for the existing msg-hook, which would not break anything, since the hook does not get any argument yet, and therefore existing hooks would be unaffected. Also, the change would be non-intrusive, easy-to-review, and it would not take so much time away from the bug-fixing that we want to do right now in the rc-cycle. Okay? Dscho