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=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 4448EC433DB for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E0664E02 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231705AbhA2XxF (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:53:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48820 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231565AbhA2XxB (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 18:53:01 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71F54C06174A for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id kx7so6600161pjb.2 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:52:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=+0h+66sz6LoUa8mO8IFF4cBeT/qYeZaYCBT+Cbz5egM=; b=Cx4AK2yjpQZqXh8YIL4PpIgJ+lq05pSjrsmtxWu9BzQmaS7c/KcVvq4H0gNpKz3b1N cFpx4GWXYzGydDew0hnuyRxZ0Y+l5lseoaRAomjxDNPY7hZc493dBPlgf8Dmj33G7SY9 DiQEXrvWvZaKvy23IFhtEA6Y8ewS4Z2E2WVMsWlr+S8XnTtjmSWAGhOJOcIr/krVMph7 doPPjKroNXOtwjoJWaNOzNM9/DpkcPB1+HeUt66OlkdCWvKqT3ycGD0FoeNOwv+t0We8 Xj26ITKz7OdeA2hsQx4JGeO9idtQLbf9YoUtXgDr8tf9fW68EsooKaOZTqlizlINpOMW Ecag== 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; bh=+0h+66sz6LoUa8mO8IFF4cBeT/qYeZaYCBT+Cbz5egM=; b=mg3xGwgLfS2RqV7LwnORpwELnAjqUa64yMHa/1iG11iPZaYE68X5QT/sjY2t/OIcHj KDX/OLQ+7xh74trjct/wj/q5HA8XdRFOcterCZgHJ9J1+OCLoCXn4wiXoRTwqMUqsOEo mdKSlGOQzmrmBgscgnw1QiqxfjBm7kqw+IJePTIxCEesRSdhl30zpsYHSgUWH9S8oPke il6Ml7Xea3n5WEuUL3w7cAYw1XGyaiQgzTSPZbM8uhJ/5tik5ZRtpupVFC56xaTRjySJ pwKRcEcPZ0OSRl804MxUbZNgu8ERUE7xjAb595QUUzP5NuCu/a6b8BeIe6gCrv8e2EhZ DpQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qQOBIupq5T4XraDQVU2G1b/zDSiDzRaQXp6XBL0Puz2xhVBG7 UlB60Z0Qo6kiEXJrvWBGk3+JSA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQamBCsLi/e6kikVvNC2U4frHsm4sZiXIBzvBIpyfMwOmn4CD+ubu0z+JbOrbaqY6jYHbJ5g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7e84:: with SMTP id j4mr6515089pjl.167.1611964338777; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:0:3547:8f35:27a2:2e7e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm11047454pgk.36.2021.01.29.15.52.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:52:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:52:12 -0800 From: Emily Shaffer To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/17] doc: propose hooks managed by the config Message-ID: References: <20201222000220.1491091-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20201222000220.1491091-2-emilyshaffer@google.com> <87mtwz7jew.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87mtwz7jew.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 04:38:31PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 22 2020, Emily Shaffer wrote: > > > Since v4, addressed comments from Jonathan Tan about wording. However, I have > > not addressed AEvar's comments or done a full re-review of this document. > > I wanted to get the rest of the series out for initial review first. > > As you note here and in a couple of other patch notes a lot of the > current state was based on my v4 commentary. I see we have parallel hook > execution by default now, woohoo! > > I've been keeping an eye on this series, but have been kicking the can > down the road on reviewing it. > > Skimming it now I think the state of it looks mostly good now when > viewing the end result, I think it's mainly got one big problem, but the > good news is that it's relatively easy to solve :) > > Which is that I think it's really hard to follow along with it because > 01/17 starts with a big design doc that's partially outdated, and > partially saying things that aren't in or should be in either a > user-facing doc or commit message. Sure. > > And then individual patches (e.g. 12/17) either don't have tests > associated with them to test the feature they add, don't update/add > docs, or the docs are at the very beginning. Thanks, sure. > > I think we should aim to mostly or entirely get rid of > Documentation/technical/config-based-hooks.txt, it was more of a "what > about this design?" document in the beginning. I'm not 100% sure that I agree - there are a couple other design docs in Documentation/technical which I still refer to from time to time, e.g. for sparse checkout. But I *do* agree that there's a lot of info there that needs to be in end-user docs. > > In a series we'd apply most or all of it should really be in end-user > doc (and stuff like "Future work" can just be noted in commit messages > as we go along). > > So long story short, I started trying to review this, but found myself > trying to reply to one patch and then grabbing docs from 01/17, or > (e.g. for the parallel stuff) not having tests and starting to come up > with them myself. Yeah. A related issue I could imagine, although not what you mentioned here, is needing to do the same thing between part I and part II of the series, as I often added some functionality late in part I and then used it first late in part II. I don't think this is worth reordering for, but probably better notes would be handy. > > So I thought I'd send this E-Mail instead as prodding to maybe convince > you to re-roll it again to make it easier to follow along in a piecemeal > fashion. > > As noted before I'm happy to help with this series if needed. I just > thought I'd send this first given that it's been a month since the last > submission, perhaps you've got some more local WIP changes by now... The biggest help for me would be review focused on nits, code style, missed free(), etc. - I still haven't gotten that kind of review yet, and I feel the series as it is now is pretty much "feature complete". In fact, and I'll mention this in reply to the cover letter in a moment, we picked this series up as-is from Junio's branch in 'gitster/git' and have been using it at Google for a couple of weeks now - primarily with users running their legacy hooks living in hookdir, but also with a subset of users encouraged to try out the config functionality. Thanks for the bump. - Emily