On 08/21/2012 11:56 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 02:45 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> writes:
>>> On 08/21/2012 11:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> I actually considered using "post-create-txn" and renaming "start-commit" to
>>>> "pre-create-txn" (with code to run "start-commit" iff not "pre-create-txn"
>>>> hook exists, for compat purposes).
>>> +1. I always have to remember which comes first, start-commit or
>>> pre-commit, so this renaming helps.
>> Suppose both pre-create-txn and start-commit exist. Is it an error?
>> If not which one is run?
>> We have already bumped the FSFS format in 1.8 but we have not yet bumped
>> the repos format. Perhaps we could bump and have an upgrade that
>> renames the hook?
> Are we comfortable with renaming the hook, which -- strictly speaking -- is
> user-managed data, not Subversion managed data? What if the hook itself is
> kept under version control (which is pretty common)? I lean against doing
> so. And because no change of administrative behavior is required (we'll
> still happily run "start-commit" if there's no "pre-txn-create"), I see no
> need for the format bump.
True, good point. Moving anything there isn't save. In my setup, we
have symlinks to a common area, which wouldn't break with a rename, but
I would be surprised.
> As to whether to flag an error if both "start-commit" and "pre-txn-create"
> exist: this makes sense. I see value in warning *someone* that the
> repository configuration is non-ideal, similarly to the error we return from
> a missing pre-revprop-change hook script ("ask the administrator to [fix
> this problem]").
A missing pre-revprop-change script will warn to users doing a propedit,
which is infrequent. But for a non-ideal hooks, do we warn all
committers? That would be annoying, but probably result in a prompt fix
by the admin ;)
Received on 2012-08-21 21:06:25 CEST