From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52520 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2020 13:06:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 52506 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2020 13:06:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:CAH6eHd, H*i:sk:phB62Ry, H*f:sk:phB62Ry, H*f:sk:CAH6eHd X-HELO: esa2.mentor.iphmx.com Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (HELO esa2.mentor.iphmx.com) (68.232.141.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:06:43 +0000 IronPort-SDR: vUMiIqrUE3P45Y/NtOGOTzEKK0+DO0QPf4Whxjm2gcRvq9Q8a8PfyWGcRSPPLYqbk4h2ZGfwxX I+uipEI/MFLHI9uM0uYO979zfPtXHx1Vn00JL0VS+CAgG6issa9duB9725YWHArBUkGNxygKnY eF0+1XPCrvS+MLKh6+U7+vJ3M+g/bl3Bp4Dh+lqqUTe2rKFyU0OGYx05OZgpW7axznWKFZCsrd 3pSVkh5pUx8Fxdb9TV/2AVA+RQEDsO5iY8oi8W8IMNpS0ZzTyqaSus3pdIg0+1wvdUcPYaXSE/ 6Ac= Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2020 05:06:20 -0800 IronPort-SDR: anqlhv20G9G1yXNz2W0EFkYBBDoO8/rEdQ+swc/0irNa8bQKX+ldHmZuFNfcN8x7eoyhv8sN/C pvxEHp6KhEL7gRBAYJsRaKnJvkquA9ndM5gOztCNg4BZ3anWRBkQYMwjzyFHKV44VH5TOvk4fd RB8o2SStGLWDWnidWXmPed6LlK4Cdl787BD34r7hJvRIVHnfbofRRPxwTmgvCI/unJx9JXhpu2 TboSujHAeUoUnhRBPbuOVOGaFHxW9ydJcxTpn4tbN4SQ/rn8sXs76cCzu2G6fARp2GMfksJmbk vb0= Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:06:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Jonathan Wakely CC: Joel Brobecker , Jason Merrill , Maxim Kuvyrkov , gcc Mailing List , Gerald Pfeifer , Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: GCC Git hooks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20190916150650.GB4945@adacore.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Return-Path: joseph@codesourcery.com X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Could you avoid the double negative here? And the error message could > be more specific to the actual error by testing the two cases > separately, e.g. I'm sort of hoping we don't end up using the hooks in this form for very long - the patch was posted to demonstrate the features that seem to need changes to the hook code, but hopefully that code can get extended upstream to support such features in a cleaner way and then we'll only need some custom configuration, not custom code. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com