Sorry to be tangent - but I don't get what's up with this trend going on for 2 years or so of hooking slow stuff to commits. That was a major upside of DVCS - allow fast local commits ; iterate quickly, make local saves, rollback, cherry-pick, rebase, remove commits, rewrite history or squash before pushing if needed, whatever helps with local experimentation while saving intermediary states. I get that clean commits are nice and all but being the one thing that has priority over all other benefits offered by git just blows my mind. Why it's not a pre-push in the first place - or even, just check commit quality at PR level, you'd get the same result with no local downside. More on reddit.com

Not going to read that entire post. Quality checks are normally handled in your CI/CD process. I'd never do that though git hooks. Sounds like this was written by someone who hasn't worked on large codebases where there's 5 or so quality tools that get triggered. Git hooks run locally and can easily be bypassed. Also commits simply aren't the right spot to "block" contributions. You want to prevent merging to master on stuff that's "not okay". If I want to commit and push my shit on a Friday, I should be able to, even if it doesn't compile. That's what branches are for after all. Edit: this person is spot on, they're right. More on reddit.com