On 02/19/2018 10:23 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> [...]
> If you do go this route, please model it after "pre-receive" rather than
> "update". We had "update" originally but found it was too limiting for
> hooks to see only one ref at a time. So we introduced pre-receive. The
> "update" hook remains for historical reasons, but I don't think we'd
> want to reproduce the mistake. :)

Hmm, what bothered me with “pre-receive” was that it was an
all-or-nothing decision, without the ability to allow some references
through and not others.

Is there a way for “pre-receive” to individually filter hooks? I was
under the impression that the only way to do that was to use the
“update” hook, which was the reason I wanted to model it after “update”
rather than “pre-receive” (my use case being a check independent for
each pushed ref)

Reply via email to