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 875FCC433ED for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 00:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CDE61157 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 00:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233010AbhDIAIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:08:48 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:54212 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232426AbhDIAIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:08:48 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FAD117F60; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:08:36 -0400 (EDT) (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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=QNQSgKpgrDDc XqFvSn5VwuAvCJg=; b=F2nj8b7e2lbwcuPp3EOCGa6OEkmf9BXik0hAnFO9XcAI HvTg9GFPxk6EuuE899Xns+In9whhR8EHcebuUqo3ss3GYgzXVfvL3xgNAJJBl+hr QvdvvHN4O+bkzdf73RN0r2cFl3J/o+mWOHWISOuRm896qGpArZMeyT8P2IGFZGU= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=h2CpLb ahTqe1Aw9qKHU3Zv342xLB2SSlfKjXgRKPL9RCx17BwIk/XCewFpbw207pJJP6UG bGYbqb/88EVnNIkucA5wEydTX+VGPsmqMqGCecQVpCUAaX09jrkwiwntSLKlxN+W lp6DdXA2C7vK6Z9gOD0SZaDs01Z+JoEo4muhk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CDE117F5C; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:08:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.243.138.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59095117F59; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:08:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Emily Shaffer , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] git-send-email: refactor duplicate $? checks into a function References: <87tuoggwmy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:08:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <87tuoggwmy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOGdmFyIEFy?= =?utf-8?B?bmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Fri, 09 Apr 2021 01:54:45 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B85A97C6-98C7-11EB-A0FF-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: > On Fri, Apr 09 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> What's the status of that topic, if there weren't other topics in >> flight that interfere with it, by the way? Is it otherwise a good >> enough shape to be given priority and stable enough to get other >> topics rebased on top of it? > > I see I've mentioned [1] in passing to you before, but in summary I hav= e > some major qualms about parts of it, but very much like the overall > direction/goal of having hooks in config. > > Elevator pitch summary of the lengthy [1]: hooks in config: good, but > having a "git hook" command introduce some nascent UI for managing a > subset of git-config: somewhere between "meh" / "bad idea" (see securit= y > concerns in [1]) / "not needed". I.e. I demonstrated that we can replac= e > it with a trivial git-config wrapper, if the series doesn't go out of > its way to make it difficult (i.e. we can/should stick all config for a > given hook in the same , and not re-invent the > "sendemail.identity" special-case). > > I'd very much like the author to respond to that :) And/or for others t= o > chime in with what they think. > > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87mtv8fww3.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ OK, Emily, I guess the ball is in your court now?