[MERGE][RFC] Enhanced hooks
robertc at robertcollins.net
Tue Feb 5 00:57:23 GMT 2008
(as before, but I'm going to review the code this time)
- These are all empty initially, because by default nothing
This change, and the static initialisation of the hooks is bad style
IMO. The fact that we are supplying some stuff that thunks across to
shell is irrelevant - we should initialise that separately. This makes
tests cleaner and provides the ability to have a completely empty *Hook
The adapters need docstrings at a minimum, or better yet to be methods
on an adapter objects as they seem to share a lot.
The api change to Hook seems unneeded, you should explain why (or better
yet, as it seems unneeded, don't change it :)).
The python style changes are really very ugly and definitely a step
backwards. We have automatically registered hooks today and they work
great. This is the fundamental thing that is driving the bb:reject - the
rest we can work with.
I don't think the hooks need to be typed either.
Basically I think what you have done is turned a self-registered system
into a manunally registered system. And this is why it is cumbersome to
I suggest you approach the problem differently and ask yourself 'how can
I get a hook written in shell to auto-register a python callable for
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080205/c593aa8e/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar