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 B14A2C4743C for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E17C611C1 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:01:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230014AbhFVADN (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:03:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47102 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230028AbhFVADM (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:03:12 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62b.google.com (mail-pl1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 129FFC061574 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id m17so6271979plx.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:00:57 -0700 (PDT) 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=dDZCMwInq3jZCyiYHDgmf2qDkkMxR3o7cK/zLxtQVTE=; b=RUvPKPQ3ASku6F6tqs2j3RpQPPM0AYYSOa+26fMvjfjaj1bd314BCVSRGZvORC8+FP sq13vu3jm4qddktNSQYzgL/E5gQ/5QdE5eAOkymnt20rWVIfSRJOrW1ECb9BcNqxa29h WsbHHoRAddHtzLnIN1awAjP+W6fElUB0Zia3BAmIjua5b24BGe1KRMyY2eoo0kbmQPNB R4u9kFx8zYtYodxCE/1pvNyZBjPK2s8iwVDJavGeS6TgOJ35tjD/Kw7maRCyKOAHssVE yhTPjQIi3bRKgLt96MOVvMg5xBolKXUZPj6NvOa+RhZ3oW2vgybzRM2tz/srnyPH3ZhV Cllw== 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=dDZCMwInq3jZCyiYHDgmf2qDkkMxR3o7cK/zLxtQVTE=; b=iHiFLBXw49PumO38qUx5N+FJoDlE42hRyj/8YVmwlJsjzH0t3HTF4iqqkwv6u2JUn7 I62dcx/NuhxRAArFMv4lms4687NXwti/eY1mewSZwNFasyG9gn7ARFhgNkHAwlpWIQls W5VrY/42E9cir7pSNwW2YfUd4uhuXGdvTk4cUZuGM0uUgtQR/5rF/ZI7LFgXsUIBgeN5 GmSHi+q069fCQUjPxatx9zngAin0SFekOoxOeJG0pgAkAg+16Vp3QMq4It9yZALU/8od kNZjGiZnitSwg5Bl8SgfRIO+e/g4r0JLs4wkhrxWRHm8EhMT/8v28GZ1if7ArvLy3Fc8 gTBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZCCySy5kPjLUbXhwWBbML+QqTWQAwS3s27cUUyjtP1z8HMNy1 CA4xMoA2TtrVoXRDbGgxk48x5g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7ZWj2ZmYgK28tm9eRmAklpabvA6e3o+HrjRCEhOk6PnfCHoe1xZqDKaCSKTM+x+aMkLejMg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bd8e:b029:11d:b246:c59a with SMTP id q14-20020a170902bd8eb029011db246c59amr20253039pls.58.1624320056181; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:200:ae2b:30fa:ce1c:ca3b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 189sm15984533pfu.84.2021.06.21.17.00.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:00:49 -0700 From: Emily Shaffer To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Taylor Blau , Felipe Contreras , Eric Sunshine , "brian m . carlson" , Josh Steadmon , Jonathan Tan , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/30] hook: add 'run' subcommand Message-ID: References: <87lf7bzbrk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <87im2848pn.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: <87im2848pn.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 09:30:59PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18 2021, Emily Shaffer wrote: > Yes, 30-some patches that both refactor and introduce new behavior are > harder to reason about. > > I've also had suggestions about the end-state, but I think whatever we > arrive at doing the scaffolding first without behavior changes makes > sense. > > > I don't dislike the reorganization, but I do still wonder whether it's > > a setback to the progress the original series had made. I guess it is > > hard to know - I had thought the original series was pretty much ready > > to go in, therefore making "what if we ordered it this way" moot. But it > > seems that you disagree. > > I'm still not sure if I disagree, well, I'm 95% sure I disagree with > some of the end-state, but you never replied to my questions about that: > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87mtv8fww3.fsf@evledaraar.gmail.com/ & > https://lore.kernel.org/git/87lf80l1m6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/; So I > don't know for sure, maybe there's things I missed there. > > I think since Junio picked up the "base" version of this and it looks > like we're going that way first that's not something we need to discuss > now if you'd like to punt it, but I'd really like to get that cleared up > post-base topic. > > In brief summary: > > I'm 100% with you on hooks being driven by config, that they aren't is > in hindsight a historical wart. Ditto the parallel execution etc. (which > I'd suggested in an earlier iteration). That's all great. > > Where you lose me is the need for having "git hook" be an administrative > interface for it, particularly (as noted in the linked E-Mail) since the > need for that over simply using "git config", or a trivial "git config" > wrapper seems to be fallout from other arbitrary design choices. > > I.e. that all the config for a hook needing to be discovered by a > two-pass iteration over the config space (or keeping state), as opposed > to a "hookcfg..*" (or whatever) prefix. > > Maybe that makes sense in the eventual end-state, your series has the > equivalent of "WIP, more will be added later" around that "git hook" > command; but not having the full overview of that I think we can make > simpler inroads into getting us all of the practical featureset we want, > without regretting our choices in command & config interfaces later. > > > Anyway, I do hear also that you don't have interest in driving this > > subset to completion, and that's fine. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > I submitted a v3 of this (which I forgot to label as such in the > subject) at > https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-00.27-0000000000-20210617T101216Z-avarab@gmail.com/; > given the timing our E-Mails may have crossed. > > But no, I will drive this subset to completion. What I meant with the > "run with it" comment and the earlier reply on v1 of my "base" version > here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/87y2bs7gyc.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ > > ... is that I'd be happier if I managed to just convince you that the > more piecemeal approach is better, and something you'd want to pick up & > drive going forward. > > I.e. it's still >95% your code, just re-arranged and split into subsets > of your patches. I really did not mean to "steal" it, it's just > something I hacked up one day to see if the more incremental approach > I'd been suggesting (and felt you were either ignoring or were too busy > to address) was something that could work. Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I do like this direction, and I'm pleased you were able to chop it up in a way where partial submission made sense - I struggled with that, myself. Yes, I am excited that you want to drive this series :) :) and will be happy to rebase on top of it. I'll have a look at the range-diff for v3 this week. Thanks. - Emily