From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) (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 B8BAC1AA782 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744813693; cv=none; b=Drdl+DuiAO7M7AxHSN6NcNJy3RdTp4KLIlNpiKCP1rdOxgbtAmp3JOMFFpSi4LgMLZoZc3I8PkPs5JQj5P2VoLdSPEpN/gNqX07r9eQjk/mZsGMmHhSpe1n4UfoAO1LHX+QJX+FQA77uuQ/NCY4ufuzK92uJPFQkFjOcm9zeZOs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744813693; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fb7ipgl21+APAuWiKsTgf06xnLwrCSFjzYCM7VaLG+A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cx8Ml/MwFluCuW9ZMjQ3Q+sJ+utnWsTOA35vn0SJzAcx/CBI1WQlZw8jvRJUOLj8fnUVtV+6PBj1k0UUFdd32A6d9hBnCJaVeAAHVb/cy/9FLxLVG4gcrTT0m+UzqryDHS0F8AgBtxrgsD0EU1ANmljm73Zti6h6/gPQl5fZSz0= 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=a5cVbmZ0; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Ga8b+HuM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.152 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="a5cVbmZ0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Ga8b+HuM" Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.phl.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE63114022C; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:28:10 -0400 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=fm1; t=1744813690; x=1744900090; bh=UREN2TciQ8 setV4fM7KNG22Jg9uw50ypRBckidK5/8s=; b=a5cVbmZ073D67xP849fkclLBY5 9nDmqD1VK6WkwtMzLVjOgG6PC1e2FBWxp8tB+eoFI/NW0GDYGKQmGkSEdNJA9mvq gVA5sAtjq3oB5H3cMm/JLsrf+xMpQBdiiXn7MuRVAjQ0T20Mql0jEzXp9DhSW52q ZanLPF/h3r8wECmpwAq7/Cfwomp/opDocNxSclRHzZxF+ZubhiYDQbXUVCXmxy1o LxN2fuvuShiTP/D2P2PpeYwmF3k3Ivetgweo8Hlt0s7kRd48VQbQKRUudmkQ5x4c aIYiIPWfnI8lk6G4TEijlunvj3qlrJRs4B8sjSMDF3hXMEA6jPG3xulpJQoQ== 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=fm2; t= 1744813690; x=1744900090; bh=UREN2TciQ8setV4fM7KNG22Jg9uw50ypRBc kidK5/8s=; b=Ga8b+HuMfRmtnGPbpaLBhaRkU9WVT286/3neaVq16xcJOh1ATwA hJJs4Ob+IHWOBmvyFFicrNGk8bUjekvzlzjVR5aiDaf/FMQlaYPhRmx6KWXcH7Jp XG3Ebs5J82JCyUw2n+mY85zQOqI/N5roSj7UkAuygs168dR3UkW7A4uTk5wRV0gZ fYW9Yw2Pr8ZfqU0YN1PMNBw0Hgbr9k0OhemxqlbuUGxgGryye9euWZGRfybXsufD FLMF1YH8q39ubXp/yrIC2wLqSdvqkzOZH2WEEbtesBCcxEykv1ZiGMlcdc4/IIpR 6nvcN8wNDBlgPKw0d3n7WMzxtQVscVrX2uA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvvdeiieduucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeu feejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghr tghpthhtohepkedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhhihhllhhiph drfihoohguuddvfeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehsthholhgvvgesghhm rghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougesughunhgvlhhmrd horhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtgho mhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoh epjhgrmhgvshesjhgrmhgvshhlihhurdhiohdprhgtphhtthhopehsrghnuggrlhhssegt rhhushhthihtohhothhhphgrshhtvgdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrse hpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:28:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Derrick Stolee , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, james@jamesliu.io, "brian m. carlson" Subject: Re: [PATCH] git: add --no-hooks global option In-Reply-To: (Phillip Wood's message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:29:13 +0100") References: <2c7994bc-2be0-43a5-9627-0d530746b3ab@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:28:08 -0700 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 Phillip Wood writes: >> I don't read a strong reason in your message that this is a _bad_ >> idea either. As in, there's nothing that hints that this will cause >> significant harm to users other than providing a new footgun (and we >> have plenty of those for folks willing to look, including the >> _existence_ of hooks). > > It is certainly not a terrible idea given that it is possible to > disable hooks already but I'm not clear what the motivation is. I > don't find the example of a skipping a pre-commit hook persuasive as > we already provide a convenient way for users to skip that > hook. Elsewhere in this thread you mention the "pre-command" and > "post-command" hooks but they are not part of git - if a fork is > running its own hooks and that is causing problems for users I'm not > sure we want to change the upstream project to address that. If there > was a clearer motivation it would be easier to understand the benefits > of this change. Thanks for pushing back. The default for any new changes is not to apply unless there is a compelling reason why it is a good idea, saying that this is not a bad thing does not serve as an effective justification. If we want to give scripters a more stable foundation to build on, the answer should not be to pile more and more "no hooks, no configurations, just a vanilla mode of operation" options to end-user facing porcelain commands, but to clean up the internal implementation of such porcelain commands to refactor into stable plumbing commands that scripters can rely on.