From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: pre-push signature hook error reporting Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 14:15:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87y3xicfbg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170105161431.9803-1-dannym@scratchpost.org> <878tqpjw93.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <8760lj5eb6.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <20170113152400.GA24322@jasmine> <20170117031414.GB23513@jasmine> <87o9z1aksp.fsf@gnu.org> <20170121013910.GC26714@jasmine> <20170206153922.GA10240@jasmine> <87k293i8cm.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49866) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cb5cR-0002TS-DY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 08:15:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cb5cM-0006QV-Gs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 08:15:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87k293i8cm.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> (Marius Bakke's message of "Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:37:13 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Marius Bakke skribis: > Leo Famulari writes: > >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:05:42PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> For the pre-push hook, the overhead seems reasonable (perhaps we could >>> limit the range to commits after the first signed commit to avoid >>> looping for no reason?) and an improvement. >> >> Here is a patch for the hook that I've been using for the past couple we= eks. >> >> For the common use case of pushing new commits to an existing branch, I >> don't notice the hook at all, except when it catches my mistakes. > > Thanks a lot for this! I haven't tested it, but the code LGTM. Ditto, thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.