On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:08:29AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wking@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Also, it appears that the `git-rebase--*.sh` handlers don't use the
> > pre-rebase hook. Is this intentional?
>
> The codeflow of git-rebase front-end, when you start rebasing, will
> call run_pre_rebase_hook before calling run_specific_rebase. It
> will be redundant for handlers to then call it again, no?
>
> In "rebase --continue" and later steps, you would not want to see
> the hook trigger.
Ah, that makes sense.
> > diff --git a/Documentation/githooks.txt b/Documentation/githooks.txt
> > index b9003fe..bc837c6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/githooks.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/githooks.txt
> > @@ -140,9 +140,10 @@ the outcome of 'git commit'.
> > pre-rebase
> > ~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > -This hook is called by 'git rebase' and can be used to prevent a branch
> > -from getting rebased.
> > -
> > +This hook is called by 'git rebase' and can be used to prevent a
> > +branch from getting rebased. The hook takes two parameters: the
> > +upstream the series was forked from and the branch being rebased. The
> > +second parameter will be empty when rebasing the current branch.
>
> Technically this is incorrect.
>
> We call it with one or two parameters, and sometimes the second
> parameter is _missing_, which is different from calling with an
> empty string. For a script written in some scripting languages like
> shell and perl, the distinction may not matter (i.e. $2 and $ARGV[1]
> will be an empty string when stringified) but not all (accessing
> sys.argv[2] may give you an IndexError in Python).
Will fix in v2.
Since $upstream_arg will always be set, would it make sense to change
the `${1+"$@"}` syntax in run_pre_rebase_hook() to a plain "$@"?
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature