From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4441F404 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 03:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727117AbeHaHWO (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 03:22:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:35106 "EHLO mail-pf1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727067AbeHaHWO (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 03:22:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id p12-v6so4825670pfh.2 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:16:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=PclUqidZO1/CKAdQ64sIPQPflAku+dzr98hVJEYo5m0=; b=iVrINY1vnaD0/HWEEeGZL3XCDSPGw8ROeZUdd5hxsak3b0h6Idhv3iIafnOg15jmVE 7yEEy+toiDoPzSy9ONRCpXAfheLaB3/Oat9oCgweeFnPV9YnknA0yUcjZIimYnUJDV8O dIXIkAUrwQMK9GDuNUfkDmVhrThj6KR26Q8EY3ozC0AWPyqakwJdLWnyCiAfBx/NH2y3 Lh2rv2bzEP3XMjeoGAZbdZCoFlqwYjVe9QTyqygusE+A/317nJpbqFT4+Nq56TXwu1i+ 3tvtGVvPo2vV/NExblhoqnwbZ4KDrLqFYnAfRVrZybDOq2Ql2hX2ETC38VWrPDpnWaEK ElxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=PclUqidZO1/CKAdQ64sIPQPflAku+dzr98hVJEYo5m0=; b=e4TChv7QxaPgBeqNnwqu5xu9aHne8Y4NLlfSwwWM4ltR5vrOQ1cR+KuYD7dM0FLtF8 f7S9GIjDeV1FL1mRB7SFi2RE7/2ZZTepcz0rRW60nYOLGFZSMcSPfq4OH0V8J2O57jtm kHhIbPokV8MhnhzaV9nuTxHFOzJMMFPw+IRRur4EHZ3u7BLQXelNP+nAe3/91qpCSGye Nj5DDXPQSCTRrQEoZpHrywmYGuQhYRWCk0grE/EnaC1IggOTWZtkb0ZS4w+NSI/a0v/X G++hQ05/QfnyPH2NMi2H1ISPG5Bl2CaP6QSKS3jnsfexle9+lrAQVvbahMg2vwQqXcOy sNvg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51AJ50EHJoeVeBC7SyclOtYICC4fIUSUaXXG53fipky78sZji4Ff UsUyP4U2Wr0yfD9BHKGZQPmrI2aT X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbqXaCI5aw2OrMj2TFN1KzR0b3/O9ssJp0NLPgv7TJ7CAwgEaeo01nIKuIM+oTf9liIgfLfiQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:9c17:: with SMTP id f23-v6mr13584692pfe.209.1535685417086; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aiede.svl.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:4187:1d6c:d3d6:9ce6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h85-v6sm14350872pfk.71.2018.08.30.20.16.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:16:54 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Wesley Schwengle , Git mailinglist Subject: Re: Feature request: hooks directory Message-ID: <20180831031654.GB98946@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> References: <87pnxzdib7.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87pnxzdib7.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > There is interest in this. This E-Mail of mine gives a good summary of > prior discussions about this: > https://public-inbox.org/git/877eqqnq22.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ > > I.e. it's something I've personally been interested in doing in the > past, there's various bolt-on solutions to do it (basically local hook > runners) used by various projects. A few unrelated thoughts, to expand on this. Reports of experience from using local hook runners would be very welcome so we can benefit from their good ideas and avoid their bad ones. That was part of the motivation for not building this in for so long: we want people to experiment so that the result can be something that works well for a lot of people. Separately from that, in [1] I mentioned that I want to revamp how hooks work somewhat, to avoid the attack described there (or the more common attack also described there that involves a zip file). Such a revamp would be likely to also handle this multiple-hook use case. As a word of caution, today we support having multiple credential helpers in use and it's a nightmare to support. The layering model is complicated and users don't understand it. So we might want to try to avoid whatever went wrong there. ;-) Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20171002234517.GV19555@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com/