Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > ... there are _already_ hooks without pre/post. >> >> Like commit-msg? Yes, it would have been nicer if it were named >> verify-commit-message or something. > > No it wouldn't. I can use the commit-msg hook to change the commit message and > to absolutely no verification, so verify-commit-message would be misleading. You are confused (and please do not spread the confusion). If you read the first paragraph of the documentation on the hook and think for 5 seconds why "--no-verify" countermands it, you would realize that the hook is primarily meant for verification. We also allow the hook to edit the message, but that is not even "a useful feature added as an afterthought"; the documentation mentions it because the implementation did not bother to make sure the hook did not touch the message file. It was a mistake not to call it with a clear name that tells verification happens there. >> Old mistakes are harder to change because of inertia. It is not a >> good excuse to knowingly make a new mistake to add new exceptions >> that the users need to check documentations for, is it? I see no reason to waste more time on this point. -- 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