On 08/21/2012 02:45 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > Blair Zajac <bl...@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.
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]").
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
