On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:58:34AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 15 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote:
>
> > Soon, we will allow users to specify hooks using the config. These
> > config-specified hooks may require different child_process options than
> > hook executables in the gitdir. So, let's differentiate between hooks
> > coming from the gitdir and hooks coming from the config.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > hook.c | 3 ++-
> > hook.h | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hook.c b/hook.c
> > index 19138a8290..3a588cb055 100644
> > --- a/hook.c
> > +++ b/hook.c
> > @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ struct list_head* hook_list(const char* hookname)
> > struct hook *to_add = xmalloc(sizeof(*to_add));
> > to_add->hook_path = hook_path;
> > to_add->feed_pipe_cb_data = NULL;
> > + to_add->from_hookdir = 1;
> > list_add_tail(&to_add->list, hook_head);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -200,7 +201,7 @@ static int pick_next_hook(struct child_process *cp,
> > cp->dir = hook_cb->options->dir;
> >
> > /* add command */
> > - if (hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
> > + if (run_me->from_hookdir && hook_cb->options->absolute_path)
> > strvec_push(&cp->args, absolute_path(run_me->hook_path));
> > else
> > strvec_push(&cp->args, run_me->hook_path);
> > diff --git a/hook.h b/hook.h
> > index 586ddf40bb..60389cd8cd 100644
> > --- a/hook.h
> > +++ b/hook.h
> > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ struct hook {
> > /* The path to the hook */
> > const char *hook_path;
> >
> > + unsigned from_hookdir : 1;
> > +
> > /*
> > * Use this to keep state for your feed_pipe_fn if you are using
> > * run_hooks_opt.feed_pipe. Otherwise, do not touch it.
>
> The "from_hookdir" looks like it isn't used until 6/9, and maybe the
> absolute_path change too? In any case this seems like a carried-forward
> rebase of
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210311021037.3001235-5-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx/
> or some version thereof.
>
> At this point I tihnk it would be way better to squash this and other
> such changes that basically add a field to a struct that isn't used yet
> into whatever commit use/need them.
I think at this point we run into you and me having different
patch-storytelling styles - which probably is what led to the big topic
restart in the first place ;)
I'd prefer to see the "start using config too" patch stay as small as it
can; that's why I ended up with a handful of minor setup commits and
then one "and now here's config" commit.
Even if it's different from how you would tell it - is it wrong? (And if
it is, that's fine, and I'll change it, but I don't think it is - that's
why I structured the series this way.)
- Emily
