Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Name it run_hook_le() (name modelled after execle()), and call it in
> your change where you add new calls to this function, and add a thin
> wrapper run_hook() that preserves the traditional "We can pass only
> the index-file" for new callers we do not even know about on the
> topics in flight.
> Later we can eradicate callers of run_hook() that treats the index-file
> specially, which was a grave mistake in a public API.

I am also OK if the patch _removed_ run_hook() and renamed the one
with the current semantics to run_hook_with_custom_index() or

It would allow us to catch any in-flight topic we do not know about
that adds a call to run_hook() expecting that it would take a custom
index file.  We will see a link failure, and then we can evil-merge
to update such a callsite to call run_hook_with_custom_index().

An updated run_hook() with different function signature (which is
in this patch) will also let us notice, but the evil-merge to fix
the resulting mess will have to be larger than necessary, which is
not what we want.

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

Reply via email to