On 2019.07.29 22:29, Martin Ågren wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 01:56, Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This series revives an old suggestion [...] to make merge honor > > pre-commit hook or a separate pre-merge hook. Since pre-commit does not > > receive any arguments (which the hook could use tell between commit and > > merge) and in order to keep existing behaviour (as opposed to the other > > patch) this series introduces a pre-merge hook, with a sample hook that > > simply calls the pre-commit hook. > > Argh, I wanted to comment on this in the cover letter, but forgot and > just left a bunch of nits. > > I wonder if we might ever regret naming this "pre-merge" and not, e.g., > "pre-merge-commit". There's the pre-rebase hook which runs before > git-rebase even starts actually rebasing, so I could well imagine a > "pre-merge" hook which would get called before merging starts. "pre-merge-commit" sounds reasonable to me. I'll wait for a bit before sending out V3 in case anyone else wants to chime in here though. > I'm also pondering whether there should be an "automatic" in there, but > "pre-automatic-merge-commit" looks a bit awkward. Anyway, I'm not even > sure an "automatic merge commit" is a well-defined thing. I can figure > out what it pretty certainly means, but it's not crystal clear. There > might be a need for some more discussion in the added docs for what this > new hook is for and how it compares to pre-commit. Right now, the > proposed docs suggests they're equivalent in a way, but I think that's a > bit confusing -- they are certainly not synonyms, and they'd never both > be called, for example. They can be used for the same purpose in > different scenarios, sure. > > I tried coming up with some proposed docs for githooks.txt, but didn't > feel I achieved much of value. :-/ > > Martin
