On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:27:52 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> writes: > > > Added documentation of pre-receive and post-receive hooks and updated > > documentation of update and post-update hooks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> > > Thanks, much appreciated. Domain ucw.cz sounds familiar; are > you close by to Pasky? Studied the same faculty. > [...] > > +The standard output of this hook is sent to `stderr`, so if you > > +want to report something to the `git-send-pack` on the other end, > > +you can simply `echo` your messages. > > I think "sent to stderr" is a implementation detail between > receive-pack and hook scripts. I would just keep the "if you > want to..." part. It's actually original wording from description of 'update'. I think just leaving out the stderr thing is not right, because it's important that both stdout and stderr go to the same place. I'll change it to: Both standard output and error output are forwarded to `git-send-pack` on the other end, so you can simply `echo` messages for the user. > > +[[post-receive]] > > +post-receive > > +------------ > > + > > +This hook is invoked by `git-receive-pack` on the remote repository, > > +which happens when a `git push` is done on a local repository. > > +It executes on the remote repository once after all the refs have > > +been updated. > > + > > +This hook executes once for the receive operation. It takes no > > +arguments, but for each ref that was updated it receives on standard > > +input a line of the format: > > + > > + <old-value> SP <new-value> SP <ref-name> NL > > + > > +on stdin, where `<old-value>` is the old object name stored in the > > +ref, `<new-value>` is the new object name to be stored in the ref and > > +`<ref-name>` is the full name of the ref. > > Maybe > > It takes no arguments, but gets the same information as > the `pre-receive` hook does on its standard input. > > to avoid the duplicated description. Makes sense. > > +[[post-update]] > > post-update > > ----------- > > > > @@ -146,7 +214,8 @@ the outcome of `git-receive-pack`. > > > > The 'post-update' hook can tell what are the heads that were pushed, > > but it does not know what their original and updated values are, > > -so it is a poor place to do log old..new. > > +so it is a poor place to do log old..new. See > > +<<post-receive,'post-receive'>> hook above for a better one. > > Instead of just passing 'a better one' judgement without > rationale, it is more helpful to explain why the newer ones are > recommended, so that the reader can agree to it. > > In general, `post-receive` hook is preferred when the hook needs > to decide its acion on the status of the entire set of refs > being updated, as this hook is called once per ref, with > information only on a single ref at a time. Yes, it's probably better. Though in this case the post-update hook should be really obsoleted. It takes names of all updated refs on command-line, which is unlikely to fail on linux, but might fail on Windows where the command-line lenght is much more limited. But for now I'll just mention that the other hook does have the information this one does not. -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
