Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] hook: scaffolding for git-hook subcommand
From: Emily Shaffer <hidden>
Date: 2020-10-06 19:06:24
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:24:18PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi, Emily Shaffer wrote:quoted
Introduce infrastructure for a new subcommand, git-hook, which will be used to ease config-based hook management. This command will handle parsing configs to compose a list of hooks to run for a given event, as well as adding or modifying hook configs in an interactive fashion. Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <redacted> --- .gitignore | 1 + Documentation/git-hook.txt | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ Makefile | 1 + builtin.h | 1 + builtin/hook.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ git.c | 1 + t/t1360-config-based-hooks.sh | 11 +++++++++++ 7 files changed, 55 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/git-hook.txt create mode 100644 builtin/hook.c create mode 100755 t/t1360-config-based-hooks.shoptional: I could imagine this being squashed into patch 3 --- that way, the command has functionality as soon as it exists. Alternatively:
I would prefer to leave it on its own. Managing changes like builtin<->standalone or even the one you mentioned below about RUN_SETUP_GENTLY is somewhat easier to manage when they aren't in the same patch as the business logic, IMO.
[...]quoted
--- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/git-hook.txt@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +git-hook(1) +=========== + +NAME +---- +git-hook - Manage configured hooks + +SYNOPSIS +-------- +[verse] +'git hook' + +DESCRIPTION +----------- +You can list, add, and modify hooks with this command.This could say something like "This is a placeholder command that will gain functionality in subsequent patches" to make the current state clear.
Done.
[...]quoted
--- a/git.c +++ b/git.c@@ -519,6 +519,7 @@ static struct cmd_struct commands[] = { { "grep", cmd_grep, RUN_SETUP_GENTLY }, { "hash-object", cmd_hash_object }, { "help", cmd_help }, + { "hook", cmd_hook, RUN_SETUP },This makes the command require that it run within a git repository, but I can imagine wanting to list hooks outside of any. Should it use RUN_SETUP_GENTLY instead?
Nice catch. I'll add a test to the list patch to that effect also.