Received: from spf3.us4.outblaze.com (spf3.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.25]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9CMeINC021710 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:40:19 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE50537A8 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:40:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHVQc-0005tq-I8 for migo@homemail.com; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:47:34 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHVQF-0005qh-6C for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:47:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHVQD-0005pr-8k for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:47:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHVQD-0005ns-4l for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:47:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1CHVIl-0000i8-E2 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:39:28 -0400 Received: from [205.149.2.136] (helo=xl2.seyza.com) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CHSyF-0001f1-PM for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:10:10 -0400 Received: from xl2.seyza.com (localhost.seyza.com [127.0.0.1]) by xl2.seyza.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9CK8Utt001459; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:08:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lord@xl2.seyza.com) Received: (from lord@localhost) by xl2.seyza.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i9CK8Tqf001456; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:08:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lord) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200410122008.i9CK8Tqf001456@xl2.seyza.com> From: Thomas Lord To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Harald Meland on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:43:23 +0200) Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Having two precommit hooks References: <20041007134742.GA6373@www> <41654FC3.1060507@panoramicfeedback.com> <416555E6.9090706@johnmeinel.com> <41656099.6000808@panoramicfeedback.com> <416581CF.6040200@johnmeinel.com> <4165872E.9030203@panoramicfeedback.com> <416610CD.5090203@johnmeinel.com> <416679FF.80707@panoramicfeedback.com> <1097301232.6235.93.camel@localhost> <20041009160345.53440c59.erikd-tla@mega-nerd.com> <20041009163730.GA22154@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <200410092024.i99KO4of036759@xl2.seyza.com> <200410102246.i9AMk02X041575@xl2.seyza.com> <200410111611.i9BGBjv9044929@xl2.seyza.com> X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1062 Lines: 32 > From: Harald Meland > [Thomas Lord] > > As long as hooks are created for points during commands that are well > > defined as part of Arch-in-the-abstract rather than points during > > computations which exist only as artifacts of a particular > > implementation there should be little cost to adding and maintaining > > them. > Sure -- you're the one who ought to know which "points during commands > that are well defined as part of Arch-in-the-abstract"; I'm only > guessing. :-) Yeah, and that's a bug (that I'm the primary one who can distinguish such well-defined points). There's a (not so) little documentation and spec writing effort that needs to happen here and which probably will over the next year (knock on wood) -- hopefully that will fix the bug. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/