On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 08/21/2012 02:29 PM, Blair Zajac 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. > > Cool. Will make that my next set of changes, then. Thanks for the feedback.
Who besides a SVN developer would know that pre/post create-txn comes before pre-commit? I do not see how these names are an improvement. I also do not think start-commit, pre-commit were all that confusing to end users. The confusing part is always just understanding what you can do in the hooks. Did you ever say why you ruled out your earlier idea of simply moving where the start-commit hook was called to later in the process where more information would be available? If we have a new hook, I do not have an obvious idea as to better new name. Maybe init-commit just so that the link to the commit process is being maintained. Then we would have to document the order is start > init > pre > post It seems like moving the start-commit hook would be easiest option and I do not immediately see how it would break existing hooks. So I do not see the downside to that option. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
