On 3/11/2010 12:56 PM, Stein Somers wrote:
The post-commit hook starts a single process, and eats its STDOUT.
But you can make that single process into whatever you want. If you hook
script is for instance:
#!/bin/sh
perl watch-file.pl | perl notify.pl
then your hook consists of a shell proces
The post-commit hook starts a single process, and eats its STDOUT.
But you can make that single process into whatever you want. If you hook
script is for instance:
#!/bin/sh
perl watch-file.pl | perl notify.pl
then your hook consists of a shell process and two perl processors
working togethe
On Mar 10, 2010, at 18:35, David Weintraub wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ted Stern wrote:
>> What about this basic shell manipulation?
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> exec 1>&2# combine stdout with stderr
>>
>> # do stuff that generates stdout
>>
>> if [ ] ; then
>> exit 1 # re
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ted Stern wrote:
> What about this basic shell manipulation?
>
> #!/bin/sh
>
> exec 1>&2 # combine stdout with stderr
>
> # do stuff that generates stdout
>
> if [ ] ; then
> exit 1 # return non-zero exit every time there's stdout
> fi
I know that hook
On 10 Mar 2010 05:30:03 -0800, David Weintraub wrote:
>
> I know that when you run a hook, the STDOUT is not returned to the
> user, and STDERR is only returned if that hook returns a non-zero exit
> code.
>
> However, I'm writing a post-commit hook, and I'd like to know if it is
> possible to pipe
I know that when you run a hook, the STDOUT is not returned to the
user, and STDERR is only returned if that hook returns a non-zero exit
code.
However, I'm writing a post-commit hook, and I'd like to know if it is
possible to pipe STDOUT to another process as part of the hook script.
For example,
