"David Symonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reading HEAD would be fine. I guess it just seems a sensible and more > direct path to passing that information so that the hook has less to > do. It seems quite a simple thing that would be very helpful to hook > writers, with zero impact on everyone else.
You cannot just say "The hook did not get any parameter, nobody would have cared, this does not regress." Some anal people could have checked and checked "test $# = 0" at the beginning to make sure their hooks do not get broken by random interface changes on the git side. Now their carefully written script errors out as designed. Also some people seem to use different version of git on the same repository (e.g. NFS mounted across hosts that run different versions of git). I would 80% agree with you if the post-comit hook interface were written in the way your patch does from day one. Unfortunately that is not the case. The remaining 20%? If we _were_ to change the hook interface, I would also pass which branch the commit is added to, in addition to what commit it is. Both are easily obtainable by reading HEAD (you need to read HEAD twice, though) but would be handy. _______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
