Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#2Not just faster than pre-commit, and totally compatible. Also with more features.
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#3This has been such a breath of fresh air. It was seamless to drop into my projects.
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#4I struggle to see value with git hooks. They're an opt-in, easily opt-out way of calling shell scripts from my understanding--you can't force folks to run them, and they don't integrate/display nicely with CI/CD.
Why not just call a shell script directly? How would you use these with a CI/CD platform?
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#5Am I alone in that I never have had an issue with performance with pre-commit? granted I don't work on projects the size of the Linux kernel, but I haven't had any complaints.
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#6[deleted]
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#7I struggle to see value with git hooks. They're an opt-in, easily opt-out way of calling shell scripts from my understanding--you can't force folks to run them, and they don't integrate/display nicely with CI/CD. Why not just call a shell script directly? How would you use these with a CI/CD platform?
The value is in finding out something is going to fail locally before pushing it. Useful for agents and humans alike.
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#8I struggle to see value with git hooks. They're an opt-in, easily opt-out way of calling shell scripts from my understanding--you can't force folks to run them, and they don't integrate/display nicely with CI/CD. Why not just call a shell script directly? How would you use these with a CI/CD platform?
I tend to work the other way around - what is defined in CI steps gets added to pre-commit. Several tools have already existing configurations or you can use local mode.
Sure, I can't force people to use it but it saves them time as CI would fail anyway.
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#9I struggle to see value with git hooks. They're an opt-in, easily opt-out way of calling shell scripts from my understanding--you can't force folks to run them, and they don't integrate/display nicely with CI/CD. Why not just call a shell script directly? How would you use these with a CI/CD platform?
You can obviously bypass them, but having precommit hooks to run scripts locally, to make sure certain checks pass, can save them from failing in your pipeline, which can save time and money.
From an org standpoint you can have them (mandate?) as part of the developer experience.
(Our team doesn't use them, but I can see the potential value)
Re: Prek: A better, faster, drop-in pre-commit replacement, engineered in Rust
#10Not just faster than pre-commit, and totally compatible. Also with more features.
[flagged]