Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The reason for supporting the *.d directories was that I spotted a lot > of hooks people had hacked up at work using the pee(1) command[1] to > run sequences of other unrelated hook commands. IIRC, we wanted to do this several years ago but after discussion decided that we didn't want to have this in the core, because we didn't want to hardcode the policy on interaction among multiple hooks. You can easily resolve the ordering of hooks--just declare that they are executed sequentially in strcmp() order of filenames and users will know to prefix them with fixed-number-of-digits to force their desired ordering without complaining. What is harder and the core part cannot unilaterally dictate is what should happen after seeing a failure/rejection from a hook. Some hooks among the remainder would not want to be even called. Some others do want to be called but want to learn that the previous hooks already have decided to fail/reject the operation. There may even be some others that cannot be moved to earlier part of the hook chain for other external constraints (e.g. side effect of some previous hook is part of its input), but would want to override the previous decision to reject and let the operation pass. I am happy to see that the idea brought back alive again, but I think we prefer this start its life clearly marked as "highly experimental and subject to change", then invite interested and brave users who tolerate backward incompatible changes to experiment, in order to allow us to gauge what the right semantics and flexibility the users would want. One way to do so may be an opt-in configuration variable e.g. "experimental.multiHooks"; another may be to implement the logic as a pair of scripts (one for the command line argument variant, the other for stdin variant) and ship them in contrib/. The latter approach (i.e. scripting) might be easier for people to experiment and tweak, and in the olden days that would certainly be the approach would would have taken, but I am not too afraid of appearing uninviting to casual scripters anymore these days, so... -- 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