From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2303C433DB for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 23:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7929022472 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 23:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729996AbgL1Wzk (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:55:40 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:55754 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729683AbgL1Wv3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:51:29 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC038904E; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:50:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=UOROFkEJd0+Aj4doIF4RglcCDyU=; b=Qt/0cL mx9U309W0rZFT+/20zFlIhTib8flDnCzkgLKxRIiEkJ2DZkRyI6gxRgVL5Xjd3Bk pAi1/aVKhMAxNTi4NSPkjK9b5m828l3a3SaGZ0Av+pfp+ryqYB9zhYyvdlE/BDkd 45Stq7DZ5SzNt0M1QKLEwRfrjFgrp65RgXupE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fMz2f1BR2RgHDqN/vwRUN4s8xR3R9l4D /EO/blfgu375sE39OdwMB36FEMXFRjMnVl8Tj4Ka5dw7fFQDwXDEVkhzh68Q1jAc k9vozM3uknXyw65o6dW41gdWGAdj4oEgRi/aiGmLbmnFKM+9H8i7OBijtrlc1p2I POH8aL9ik1Y= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D008B8904D; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:50:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50F568904C; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 17:50:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , James Ramsay , Jonathan Nieder , "brian m. carlson" , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnI=?= =?utf-8?B?w7A=?= Bjarmason , Phillip Wood , Josh Steadmon , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/17] propose config-based hooks (part I) References: <20201222000220.1491091-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20201228183445.GJ3783238@google.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 14:50:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201228183445.GJ3783238@google.com> (Emily Shaffer's message of "Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:34:45 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1DAC73FA-495F-11EB-9C49-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Emily Shaffer writes: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 06:11:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Emily Shaffer writes: >> >> > Since v6: >> > >> > - Converted 'enum hookdir_opt' to UPPER_SNAKE >> > - Coccinelle fix in the hook destructor >> > - Fixed a bug where builtin/hook.c wasn't running the default git config setup >> > and therefore missed hooks in core.hooksPath when it was set. (These hooks >> > would still run except when invoked by 'git hook run' as the config was >> > called by the processes which invoked the hook library.) >> >> Thanks. Queued both series (it probably is easier to think of these >> as a single 34-patch series, as long as they both are in flight at >> the same time). >> > > Do you want me to send them as a single thread for next version? Unless we deliberately focus on stabilizing the early 17 patches into a shape that they won't need updating while working on the later part of the series, I'd guess that your next resend would contain updated versions of these 17 patches, so the only effect that it has to pretend that the patches belong to two separate series is to invite mistakes while queuing on my part. So either (1) a single thread of all patches, or (2) just the early part to really make sure everybody is happy with them, so that we can graduate it early even while the remainder may be going through revisions, would be more preferrable than the way they have been structured so far. Thanks.