"brian m. carlson" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:09:10AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "brian m. carlson" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > To preserve backwards compatibility, we don't run the hooks in the ".d"
>> > directory if the single file is a valid hook (i.e. it exists and is
>> > executable). This is because some people already have multiple hook
>> > scripts configured, and if we ran them both, we'd run the hooks twice.
>> > This would be bad for e.g. the prepare-commit-msg hook. This is also the
>> > least surprising behavior.
>>
>> OK. An obvious alternative may be to see if the expected hooks path
>> is a directory and use the contents. If ".git/hooks/pre-commit" is
>> a single file, we know it is the single hook as before, and if it is
>> a directory, we know that is not a custom made (i.e. from the world
>> before this series supported in the core-git) multi-hook setup.
>
> That's an idea I hadn't considered. I'm interested to hear other folks'
> ideas on it, but that certainly avoids a lot of the problems in my
> approach.
One downside is that the transition from the old to the new world
order becomes a bigger deal. You could have been using a precursor
of this series implemented entirely as a shell script
$ cat >.git/pre-commit <<\EOF
#!/bin/sh
for x in .git/pre-commit.d/*
do
"$x" "$@" || exit 1
done
exit 0
EOF
$ chmod +x .git/pre-commit
and with your approach, the user can keep using that set-up and then
simply remove that single file once all the Git executables the user
uses are natively aware of the multi-hook setup. With "either a
file or directory" approach, the transition would be removing the
file *and* renaming pre-commit.d directory to pre-commit.
