Hey guys, I was on vacation for a little over a week, I'll be back on
this this coming week (haven't forgotten).
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoak...@iee.org> wrote:
> From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
>> David Cowden <dco...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> The documentation as-is does not mention that the pre-push hook is
>>> executed even when there is nothing to push. This can lead a new
>>> reader to believe there will always be lines fed to the script's
>>> standard input and cause minor confusion as to what is happening
>>> when there are no lines provided to the pre-push script.
>>> Signed-off-by: David Cowden <dco...@gmail.com>
>>> I'm not sure if I've covered every case here. If there are more
>>> cases to
>>> consider, please let me know and I can update to include them.
>> I do not think of any offhand, but a more important point that I was
>> trying to get at was that we should not give an incorrect impression
>> to the readers that the scenario that is described is the only case
>> they need to be worried about by pretending to be exhaustive.
>> The "may" in your wording "This may happen when" may be good enough
>> to hint that these may not be the only cases.
>>> Documentation/githooks.txt | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/githooks.txt b/Documentation/githooks.txt
>>> index d954bf6..1fd6da9 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/githooks.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/githooks.txt
>>> @@ -203,6 +203,15 @@ SHA-1>` will be 40 `0`. If the local commit was
>>> specified by something other
>>> than a name which could be expanded (such as `HEAD~`, or a SHA-1) it
>>> will be
>>> supplied as it was originally given.
>>> +The hook is executed regardless of whether changes will actually be
>>> pushed or
>>> +not. This may happen when 'git push' is called and:
>>> + - the remote ref is already up to date, or
>>> + - pushing to the remote ref cannot be handled by a simple
>>> +In other words, the script is called for every push. In the event
>>> that nothing
>>> +is to be pushed, no data will be provided on the script's standard
> Doesn't an 'in other words' indicate it could be further tightened?
> "If there is nothing to push, the hook will still run, but the input
> line will be empty.
> Likewise the hook will still run for other cases such as:
> - the remote ref is already up to date,
> - pushing to the remote ref cannot be handled by a simple
> - etc."
>> When two things are to be pushed, the script will see the two
>> things. When one thing is to be pushed, the script will see the one
>> thing. When no thing is to be pushed, the script will see no thing
>> on its standard input.
>> But isn't that obvious? I still wonder if we really need to single
>> out that "nothing" case. The more important thing is that it is
>> invoked even in the "0-thing pushed" case, and "the list of things
>> pushed that is given to the hook happens to be empty" is an obvious
>> natural fallout.
> Personally I think it should be mentioned in that paragraph, which is
> covering all the various special cases. The 'nothing' case often causes
> confusion when it's not specified in documentation.
>>> If this hook exits with a non-zero status, 'git push' will abort
>>> pushing anything. Information about why the push is rejected may be
>>> to the user by writing to standard error.
> It may be that the documentation should include the caveat
> "Hooks, when enabled, are executed unconditionally by their calling
> Script writers should ensure they handle all conditions."
> somewhere near the top of the page to cover all hooks, which IIRC
> started David's journey. That would allow my second paragraph
> "Likewise.." to be dropped.
> [apologies for any whitespace damage]
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