Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Quite honestly, I do not particulary think this is confusing, and I > expect that this change will irritate many people by forcing them to > either set the advise config or move the ones that they deliberately > left unexecutable by renaming them by adding ".disabled" at the end. > > But these remedies are easy enough, so let's see how well it works > by merging it to 'next' and cooking it there for a while.
Well, it turns out that I am among those who are irritated, as all the repositories I work with were rather old, dating back to 2005, back when it was a norm to have these sample files installed without executable bit, to make it easy for those who choose to use them as-is to enable them by flipping the executable bit. And I do not find the advice.ignoredhook is giving particularly a good piece of advice. I suspect that it would be a better practice to rename a disabled foo-hook to foo-hook.disabled if the user wants to squelch the warning. It gives them a final chance to review what they left disabled for all these years, and then choose to either remove it, or rename it to foo-hook.disabled. "ls .git/hooks/" will then make it clear which ones are disabled without the "-F" option, which is an additional benefit. Anyway, I am not merging this topic to the upcoming release, so hopefully we'll hear from others who try 'next'. Thanks.
