Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> Inputs of the reference-transaction hook currently depends on the
> command which is being run. For example if the command `git update-ref
> $REF $A $B` is executed, it will receive "$B $A $REF" as input, but if
> the command `git update-ref $REF $A` is executed without providing the
> old value, then it will receive "0*40 $A $REF" as input. This is due to
> the fact that we directly write queued transaction updates into the
> hook's standard input, which will not contain the old object value in
> case it wasn't provided.
In effect, the user says "I do not care if this update races with
somebody else and it is perfectly OK if it overwrites their update"
by not giving $B.
> While this behaviour reflects what is happening as part of the
> repository, it doesn't feel like it is useful. The main intent of the
> reference-transaction hook is to be able to completely audit all
> reference updates, no matter where they come from. As such, it makes a
> lot more sense to always provide actual values instead of what the user
> wanted. Furthermore, it's impossible for the hook to distinguish whether
> this is intended to be a branch creation or a branch update without
> doing additional digging with the current format.
But shouldn't the transaction hook script be allowed to learn the
end-user intention and behave differently? If we replace the
missing old object before calling the script, wouldn't it lose
information?
The above is not an objection posed as two rhetoric questions. I am
purely curious why losing information is OK in this case, or why it
may not be so OK but should still be acceptable because it is lessor
evil than giving 0{40} to the hooks.
Even without this change, the current value the hook can learn by
looking the ref up itself if it really wanted to, no?
