On Thu, Jul 22 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote:
> 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.)
It's not wrong, if you'd like it that way sure.
The only reason I nudged you about it was that I assumed you'd perhaps
mostly rebased these one-at-a-time on top of the base topic, before the
base topic the patches were much larger.
There is some arbitrary cut-off-limit where it makes sense to split the
addition of code to be used later with the actual use, and that limit is
a matter of taste.
I thought perhaps given the base topic some of these patches should be
squshed given their new size, but if you've looked at them and think
it's fine as-is let's leave it at that.
