On 4/22/2014 9:31 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Stephen Leake wrote: >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Ilya Bobyr wrote: >>>> On 4/21/2014 2:17 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>>>> Ilya Bobyr wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Also, most have names that start with either "pre-" or "post-". >>>>>> It seems reasonable for both "pre-update-branch" and >>>>>> "post-update-branch" to exist. >>>>> I don't see what would be the point in that. >>>> Do you see the point in the other hooks doing that? >>> Yes, there a reason for the existance of those hooks. Now tell me why would >>> anybody use post-update-branch instead of pre-update-branch? >> I have a branch which should always be recompiled on update; >> post-update-branch would be a good place for that. > And why would pre-update-branch not serve that purpose? "pre-" hook could be used, but if the hooks is not supposed to prevent the operation, it seems reasonable to put it in the "post-" hook should one be available. For example, for clone and branch that would mean that that the branch sections are already created in .git/config, but for "pre-" hooks, should be find the right spot, configuration could probably be absent just yet. I do not think that someone is objecting adding just the "pre-" hook first. But it seems unlikely that one can envision all the possible use cases to say that "post-" hook would never be useful. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html