On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:30:59PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote: > Yes, 30-some patches that both refactor and introduce new behavior are > harder to reason about. > > I've also had suggestions about the end-state, but I think whatever we > arrive at doing the scaffolding first without behavior changes makes > sense. > > > I don't dislike the reorganization, but I do still wonder whether it's > > a setback to the progress the original series had made. I guess it is > > hard to know - I had thought the original series was pretty much ready > > to go in, therefore making "what if we ordered it this way" moot. But it > > seems that you disagree. > > I'm still not sure if I disagree, well, I'm 95% sure I disagree with > some of the end-state, but you never replied to my questions about that: > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87mtv8fww3.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ & > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87lf80l1m6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/; So I > don't know for sure, maybe there's things I missed there. > > I think since Junio picked up the "base" version of this and it looks > like we're going that way first that's not something we need to discuss > now if you'd like to punt it, but I'd really like to get that cleared up > post-base topic. > > In brief summary: > > I'm 100% with you on hooks being driven by config, that they aren't is > in hindsight a historical wart. Ditto the parallel execution etc. (which > I'd suggested in an earlier iteration). That's all great. > > Where you lose me is the need for having "git hook" be an administrative > interface for it, particularly (as noted in the linked E-Mail) since the > need for that over simply using "git config", or a trivial "git config" > wrapper seems to be fallout from other arbitrary design choices. > > I.e. that all the config for a hook needing to be discovered by a > two-pass iteration over the config space (or keeping state), as opposed > to a "hookcfg.<name>.*" (or whatever) prefix. > > Maybe that makes sense in the eventual end-state, your series has the > equivalent of "WIP, more will be added later" around that "git hook" > command; but not having the full overview of that I think we can make > simpler inroads into getting us all of the practical featureset we want, > without regretting our choices in command & config interfaces later. > > > Anyway, I do hear also that you don't have interest in driving this > > subset to completion, and that's fine. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > I submitted a v3 of this (which I forgot to label as such in the > subject) at > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-00.27-0000000000-20210617T101216Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/; > given the timing our E-Mails may have crossed. > > But no, I will drive this subset to completion. What I meant with the > "run with it" comment and the earlier reply on v1 of my "base" version > here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/87y2bs7gyc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > ... is that I'd be happier if I managed to just convince you that the > more piecemeal approach is better, and something you'd want to pick up & > drive going forward. > > I.e. it's still >95% your code, just re-arranged and split into subsets > of your patches. I really did not mean to "steal" it, it's just > something I hacked up one day to see if the more incremental approach > I'd been suggesting (and felt you were either ignoring or were too busy > to address) was something that could work. Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I do like this direction, and I'm pleased you were able to chop it up in a way where partial submission made sense - I struggled with that, myself. Yes, I am excited that you want to drive this series :) :) and will be happy to rebase on top of it. I'll have a look at the range-diff for v3 this week. Thanks. - Emily
