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 something. 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. Thanks. -- 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
