From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB8A1F5AE for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 20:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229610AbhECUbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2021 16:31:39 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46386 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229472AbhECUbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2021 16:31:39 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE642C06174A for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 13:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id s22so4587991pgk.6 for ; Mon, 03 May 2021 13:30:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=N5HSkF9de7OzXFk060NoyQwwVH5s1MlMSBIUaC9p45Y=; b=cB0tUfUxwZwRn+HzEjFfBJAyPDXbFYvFfJDmDmxXjNo2usF323PlD7+PJuXLxzj9D+ EkQb6Z2Ea7yI+tO8klMmDEZjOM42qxzhwqNlSB9jNhrcTNhHOvT12q51cF/bh48buvjQ chxVtchN7uDjqFy2cBjMvGhBLJb6oPLL+LWuuk6mKA4NqTWHkWEvzezh9Z+EVmFpA0XV vjvW/3lC7d5/afxqI/Zt5fkIQG10CKHyPcdGpEbt4P0OiNFpxfV0ebPwmy6b6LsSce9G ppRefmI0fCGikvLTBCRWtJrh5FgOX1gCUMsipZNuhpi8j2J79tKD9bCQBUBzoWTE26iF YFog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=N5HSkF9de7OzXFk060NoyQwwVH5s1MlMSBIUaC9p45Y=; b=oba/dFQq4IRFJAP2gqFSO9ZLbPqAtf+GofRRUnvjI+Xo2HguYIlr++VtUW1MLtAj1o EPNNDxERwiXi8y2f6tAGs7yB3wHEEbrx9BVaN6wq5aPxcoMv8W6UQSnULu62QW4gkHqX OM5fkkL47Jb6H4eHyviRuD/d0OTF7JXKVYGW1gn7m+AB1hfn9xc4iBYAXG/KZt9vSfA+ PIOH5Bf5k3TmW/nkbc1+mHFUCXMfWVi82djFuD+eb5MjyZB9br4ZefQFu06eJGU5Cmh9 cXmI6vKGF28we14UnlXWYXi4tC6ch0c+iqphLFLyJ3UJ8Qei/sqBemgsEhDqVlGn20O2 MjZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Mje/BO957GMaMXH8dNLiIsmVSBbxRPaZcmPU6htRngbJ1rKyp sPBAD6Gaaa0OwdPUsxIy7pwdJg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsfuXuU4fun7EMzFPIUxdGoAsTGsfSgAmhCyClp4o7FyXc9fAdgE4YsO/eCPd+RSmm1PWarQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e298:: with SMTP id d24mr23606296pjz.144.1620073844078; Mon, 03 May 2021 13:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:2ce:0:f655:ab1e:aa80:f15a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm10034982pfr.160.2021.05.03.13.30.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 03 May 2021 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 13:30:38 -0700 From: Emily Shaffer To: Junio C Hamano Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] git-send-email: refactor duplicate $? checks into a function Message-ID: References: <87tuoggwmy.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:08:30PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð 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 have > > 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 security > > concerns in [1]) / "not needed". I.e. I demonstrated that we can replace > > 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 to > > 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? The topic is not ready for submission besides interference. I have a list of things to do and was sidetracked with other work (the submodule RFC, etc.). This week I am working on getting this series polished and ready to go. - Emily