On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:10:17PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > An alternative name is onError, probably more often used for event > > callbacks. But I don't know, maybe errorBehavior is actually better. > > I'm going to use "errorStrategy", since we already have > submodule.alternateErrorStrategy. That sounds good (and I don't care too much about the name as long as it it is in the per-hook subsection like this). > > should we fall back to hook.errorBehavior? That allows people to set > > global policy, then customize just a small set of weird hooks. > > Sure, that sounds good. I like this, too. > > maybe stop-on-first-error (or if you go with the "onError" name, I > > think "stop" is enough). I know "stop on/after first hook" does not > > really make any sense when you think about it. Maybe stop-on-first is > > sufficient. > > > > I was going to suggest strcasecmp. But core.whitespace (also has > > multiple-word-values) already sets a precedent on strcmp. I think > > we're good. Or mostly good, I don't know, we still accept False, false > > and FALSE. > > I think with errorStrategy, "stop" is fine. Simpler is better. > > I literally picked what Peff had suggested in his email (mostly because > I'm terrible at naming things), and I don't get the impression he spent > a great deal of time analyzing the ins and outs of the names before > sending. I could be wrong, though. No, I didn't. :) I think "stop" is good. If the others are report-any-error and report-any-success, then the matching name for this could be report-first-error. > > > + else if (!strcmp(value, "report-any-error")) > > > > I couldn't guess based on this name alone, whether we continue or stop > > after the reporting part. The 7/7 document makes it clear though. So > > all good. > > I'm open to hearing better suggestions if anyone has any. Maybe report-all-errors would indicate that it was going to run all of the hooks. I dunno. I think the documentation you wrote is plenty clear with the current name. -Peff
