Hook should contain Config of type HookConfig about go-github

[gmlewis]

Hmmm... excellent point. From the official docs, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't switch Config over to *HookConfig and have a breaking API change.

You might also want to provide a godoc comment for the InsecureSSL field since the warnings in the official docs look pretty serious.

Would you like to make a PR, @himazawa, or shall I open this issue up to other contributors?

[gmlewis]

Looking now at your six links, no, we will not be aggregating all the functions into one, as that goes against the overall philosophy of this repo. This repo provides methods for each endpoint, and each of those links have different endpoints and/or HTTP methods, so they are all unique and will remain distinct. Thanks for asking.

Sorry for not looking at your links before responding earlier - that was my bad.

[himazawa]

On it.

I also noticed that:

https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/apps_hooks.go#L18
https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/orgs_hooks_configuration.go#L18
https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/repos_hooks_configuration.go#L18

and

https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/apps_hooks.go#L39
https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/orgs_hooks_configuration.go#L39
https://github.com/google/go-github/blob/master/github/repos_hooks_configuration.go#L39

are basically the same code. Do you want to create two generic function for them?

[gmlewis]

Do you want to create two generic function for them?

I'm this repo, we have consciously tried to always support the most recent two minor versions of the Go compiler, and now with the release of Go 1.22.0 I think it is now safe to say that Go generics are a welcome addition!

Later tonight I will try to update the maintenance scripts and GitHub Action workflow scripts to support versions 1.21.x and 1.22.x of the Go compiler.
After that gets merged, we should be able to accept PRs with generics.

🎉

[himazawa]

Wait, I was not talking about "generic" in that way. There is no need for them in this specific case, but we can use a a common function for all of them.
The real question is: is it ok if we aggregate this 3 functions into one?