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

[Ethan Benson]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:57:38PM -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> 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?

yes it does, thank you for this explanation, far more helpful then
what the other prick had to say.

> 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.

agreed.

>   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,

adding `i think' to it makes it sound far less arrogant and pretentious.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

pgpp_QIhE0HE6.pgp
Description: PGP signature