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)
