From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CE11F404 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932191AbeBSWu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:50:57 -0500 Received: from grym.ekleog.org ([94.23.42.210]:37302 "EHLO smtp.gaspard.ninja" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932180AbeBSWu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:50:57 -0500 Received: by smtp.gaspard.ninja (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0cdf6319; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:50:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gaspard.io; h= subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= grym-20170528; bh=5zRPZwgcWVubcWmTl1YP0DPySk8=; b=GITOHy6OIwfV82 CUd9+fgH92T7q0o/Hdajn0ciwcKcyd1nFGICGl3aLQMdj5oC+Xo612W83RsGoEKd 2WOueoUY81dWBCigZQoQpXupQtGdfJup6hgqFEBymndyXNfu0p32ssau3U1tWf2F uyoqIShs0FUxf+PjyNg3I1+wu1COM= Received: by smtp.gaspard.ninja (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 59ad2a4e (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128:NO); Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Fetch-hooks To: Jeff King Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Joey Hess , git@vger.kernel.org, Brandon Williams , Junio C Hamano References: <87po5dbz1a.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20180209223011.GA24578@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87e7c3b8-3b3c-1cb0-9b11-e4bf3044e539@gaspard.io> <20180210001317.GA26856@sigill.intra.peff.net> <3de8dec0-12c9-56e2-5902-97755f78ab50@gaspard.io> <20180210122131.GB21843@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5abf8565-1aa1-c101-83a7-90781682bc7a@gaspard.io> <20180214013520.GA25188@sigill.intra.peff.net> <96dd7fb3-849b-8de6-7c3a-cd6bde9da432@gaspard.io> <20180219212347.GA9748@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Leo Gaspard Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:50:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180219212347.GA9748@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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)