Re: [RFC] allowing hooks to ignore input?

2014-09-18 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes: I think this is a good move. Hooks are written by users, who sometimes are not clueful enough. Thanks for a sanity check. I do not think it is about cluefulness in this particular case.

Re: [RFC] allowing hooks to ignore input?

2014-09-16 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes: I think this is a good move. Hooks are written by users, who sometimes are not clueful enough. Thanks for a sanity check. I do not think it is about cluefulness in this particular case. A rule that is not meaningfully enforced by reliably failing offenders

Re: [RFC] allowing hooks to ignore input?

2014-09-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org writes: I think this is a good move. Hooks are written by users, who sometimes are not clueful enough. But what do our writers do when they fail with EPIPE? Die? If so, this patch alone is not sufficient. I think it is in a loop while (...) {

Re: [RFC] allowing hooks to ignore input?

2014-09-13 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 13.09.2014 um 00:48 schrieb Junio C Hamano: The pre-receive and post-receive hooks were designed to be an improvement over old style update and post-update hooks that used to take the update information on the command line and were limited by the command line length limit. They take the

[RFC] allowing hooks to ignore input?

2014-09-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
The pre-receive and post-receive hooks were designed to be an improvement over old style update and post-update hooks that used to take the update information on the command line and were limited by the command line length limit. They take the same information from their standard input. It has