Re: [PATCH] cogito: Honor either post-commit script name; fail if both are executable

Petr Baudis [off-list ref] wrote:

Dear diary, on Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:15:51PM CEST, I got a letter
where Jim Meyering [off-list ref] said that...

quoted

I promised this patch some time ago, made the changes,
and then never sent them.  This is slightly different
from the current implementation in that it fails when both
scripts are executable.  Also, it factors out the script names and
adds tests.

Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <redacted>

  I'm not sure I like this (of course, I always like additional tests,
though). The problem is that this loses a smooth upgrade path, things
suddenly break and you can't commit without having to think about fixing
your environment.

How would such a tiny change affect the upgrade path?
Failing when both scripts are executable feels more like doing the
(confused) user a favor than complicating their upgrade experience :-)

In case it wasn't clear, the only change induced by that patch is to
make cg-commit fail if *both* commit-post and post-commit scripts
exist and are executable.  I'll bet that is unusual enough not to matter.

deprecation warnings. So if we want to get rid of commit-post, we should
rather start printing deprecation warnings if commit-post exists, and in
few months cut commit-post off.

If you want to retire "commit-post", that's mostly independent.
IMHO, the things to do:
  -- announce and document the name change (leaving mention of the old
       name at least temporarily in the documentation)
  -- later, start warning if the old name is used