Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> + int ignore_missing = 0;
> const char *hook_name;
> const char *hook_path;
> struct option run_options[] = {
> + OPT_BOOL(0, "ignore-missing", &ignore_missing,
> + N_("silently ignore missing requested <hook-name>")),
> OPT_END(),
> };
> int ret;
> @@ -53,6 +56,8 @@ static int run(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> git_config(git_default_config, NULL);
>
> hook_name = argv[0];
> + if (ignore_missing)
> + return run_hooks_oneshot(hook_name, &opt);
> hook_path = find_hook(hook_name);
> if (!hook_path) {
> error("cannot find a hook named %s", hook_name);
Given that the rest of this "run()" function is more or less
identical to run_hooks_oneshot(), I have to wonder why we do not
give an .ignore_missing member to the hooks_opt structure to be done
with this. Otehrwise, every time the underlying run_hooks()
interface needs to change, we need to update two places, no?
