On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > >> +post-format-patch >> +~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> + >> +This hook is called after format-patch created a patch and it is >> +invoked with the filename of the patch as the first parameter. > > Such an interface would not work well with --stdout mode, would it? > > And if this only works with output generated into the files, then > > $ git format-patch $range | xargs -n1 $your_post_processing_script > > would do the same without any change to Git, I would imagine.
Ok I'll try to use these commands. > > So I would have to say that I am fairly negative on this change in > the presented form. Ok, I definitely did not expect this patch to be accepted the way it is, but rather was just proposing an idea. The post-format-patch.sample hook file would be missing for example. > > An alternative design to implement this as a post-processing filter > to work for both "to individual files" and "to standard output > stream" output filter may be possible, but even in that case I am > not sure if it is worth the churn. > > In general I'd look at post-anything hook that works locally with a > great suspicion, so that may partly be where my comment above is > coming from. I dunno. > Git is very easy to use when importing from other VCS, because of all the helpers like high level git-svn or low level fast-import. Patches on mailing lists can also be easily imported as a commit, so I think having an exporting system in place with various options like custom post processing would help for some use cases. Anyway I'll just drop this patch and go with your suggestion. Thanks, Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
