From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD222BF000 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 23:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766012872; cv=none; b=kNrgCyIhBaQ1PIY5TKUsML6CgR/KBN+9IkjINHJwkLghDsge1io6eiJTSKfpqtknruCeGLCjzt5XjGMo8RzgwZmweDEGeVvgc1hBUM705KPwYSZw311AzzbOLt+GPr+T0zEYhkefGWWLMKcYjHRg3ZguusrPOS9ptGR73Fi8oMA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766012872; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LTZdj8v+ZhBYMx37HKfewkQXk9k9firYq5is/+sqkRA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ImJyP1ChEvQzT0N4wWVRNPIH6pe6HPxHCHqxpJ5WvKzH15uX8AZvLOEali7XGGkyUmcfdaQK5wspxR7DK81/0KvDH/0UqcsAHVB4jpg9TBgBQAYT9RXa1fIhsnj2izt0AReioHbXguu6UeIoB0wwGO0g0cXYRbKXk5ROLzQmb5g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=eCkX6paG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=miHur3X+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="eCkX6paG"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="miHur3X+" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A75714001EF; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 18:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 17 Dec 2025 18:07:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1766012869; x=1766099269; bh=f0cudMv12c kd3xpHzPCAAYDyKpp/+acm1PAWuxJuI6A=; b=eCkX6paGjfTTKjXafs0kvwIhBp I3By4+Z8eXlFKlDN9f6WlT+3X06d1n7L19hUXv5gOH4d9t/E2+QOz+tfXA2MA8WO d8atg1mTBnpGwTaMmNQs4XZj54iPsaMfGhJauiuJ+PMvUvPBlUIB/SErHsf7WKEV DR5QqlXSvOTA0ko+AMKtWciHegIcbVlC/foEZumg0cM1cxLEdYPQLf8m1g2agf3g DamgnpAcN1XEatWIrerwf6I0JHMnnjdF4P2r9NiDzIeMWgDBlp2v5EN+oXexSUSq UCAtlmzeeFFhiDALoTLm9pilnQXL9Xi3+qCcl5MPvD4xehG9uwriumU4t0WQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1766012869; x=1766099269; bh=f0cudMv12ckd3xpHzPCAAYDyKpp/+acm1PA WuxJuI6A=; b=miHur3X+B2+35q9zFx2T17gE9IoFOEzRHW85V0ubdKZLti+jGtS UX4u6A2AgzLqfDzfbSPB0MWwceCWzV71dmMZRgig6S89odWq+nwmVlD7p8j4JlcJ wTqISzsYEKyktCvGu2aK4vyPFzDApWrLcglPVhrxaQMmBNbgAjsdkotqHM6DceH5 s2lXF8rLEgzCpaCl5LqxfZ5kZXbrxn590xjeJbLSfjid1IsxAATJPRppxFc09CRA zOPP9AfjbkpwY2doQv3y2/yoy2kkhvXdmilcO3lIHokGAN2RqYhgG7GLVQLCLuV4 HYePWOwPAXSBKGLfJC0C4DaOo8MW/sayQug== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdegfeekgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieeg ieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeduuddpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopegrughrih grnhdrrhgrthhiuhestgholhhlrggsohhrrgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehv ghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepvghmihhlhihshhgrfhhfvghrse hgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehruggrmhgriihiohesghhoohhglhgvrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhtvggrughmohhnsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtth hopegsvghnrdhknhhosghlvgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhl ihhprdifohhougduvdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofh hfvghrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 17 Dec 2025 18:07:48 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Adrian Ratiu , git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp , Josh Steadmon , Ben Knoble , Phillip Wood , Kristoffer Haugsbakk , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2?= =?utf-8?B?YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] transport: convert pre-push to hook API In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:30:30 +0100") References: <20250925125352.1728840-1-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> <20251204141535.1986263-1-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> <20251204141535.1986263-6-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> <87a4zihjxb.fsf@gentoo.mail-host-address-is-not-set> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:07:46 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 11:09:52AM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote: > ... >> The reason is the list was not exhaustive: for refs which we know >> beforehand will not be pushed (status rejected), there is no need to >> feed the pre-push hook stdin. It's saving a few cpu cycles in some >> rejection corner cases, which were missed previously. >> >> I could: >> 1. Split the extra *_REJECT_* case aditions into a separate commit, >> highlighting and explaining this better. >> 2. Drop the new cases since they are just a minor improvement in this >> series, not very important for the series overall. >> >> Any preference? > > I'd personally learn towards (2) unless it is fixing an actual bug that > can be demonstrated. In that case it might make sense to do (1) and > explain why this wasn't an issue until now. I tend to agree. If my hook did something depending on the branches the pusher is _trying_ to update, not doing (2) would even be a regression. If "git push there next seen" attempts to push these two, we know seen does not fast-forward and locally decide to refrain from pushing it, it would silently turn into "git push there next", but the hook may want to behave differently between these two sets of command line arguments. Thanks.