On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:38:26PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > This is a v4 re-roll of the "Base for "config-based-hooks" topic. I performed the rebase of my series on top of this one, and did not find very much objectionable there, but do not consider this email a thorough review of the interdiff. I expect to have time for that later in the week. > Other updates: > > * In the base topic the s/Signed-off-by/Reviewed-by/g from René > change that Junio applied locally has been folded in. > > * Almost all the callers were just "one-shot" callers, I introduced a > new run_hooks_oneshot() function for those, which gets rid of the > verbosity around memory management, see e.g. the "builtin/gc.c" in > the range-diff below. That run_hooks_oneshot() can also take a NULL > set of options. I am not so wild about this, to be honest, only because after my patch 2, it is hard to understand whether or not a hook is running in parallel or in series. It is extra code-reader overhead to know that run_hooks_oneshot() assumes that a hook can be parallelized, and I think that is unfortunate. But that is a pretty minor complaint, and I do like the lower complexity, and I agree the defaults are "good enough" for most hook events. So I guess I'm asking for ideas on how to make it more obvious what this oneshot call does in terms of parallelism. Thanks, and I hope to get to a fuller review of the interdiff soon. - Emily
