Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Patch : precomimt hook

[Miles Bader]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 02:18:00PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> so you propose
> pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-commit
> etc etc instead?

You're missing his point.*

There are limited number of point at which hooks are invoked in tla.  They
all have names, which are chosen to hopefully reflect what they mean, but are
in some sense arbitrary.  If there were a need for some hook _before_
pre-commit, it probably wouldn't be called `pre-pre-commit', but rather
something like `pre-commit-FOO', where FOO might be something like `pre-lint'
if it happened before commit's tree-lint (just an example, I've no idea
whether it makes sense!).

On the other hand, if there were multiple hook files arranged time-wise, as
you suggest, one couldn't use such suggestive names because the hook files
are not operation-specific.  The mapping of hook points to which hook file
they were in would be (I think) a source of much confusion, especially if
some operations like commit did end up needing multiple hooks.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

-Miles

* I gotta stop using that phrase; it seems like every other message in this
  mailing list begins with it, half of them in an overly snarky manner.

  Alternatively, perhaps it could have the meaning formalized out of it, like
  a salutation; _everybody_ should start their messages with:

     I think you're missing the point,

     ...

-- 
Run away!  Run away!