From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:25:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t1503: test rev-parse --verify --quiet with deleted reflogs
Message-ID: <xmqqppew7nbt.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140914185403.GA93515@gmail.com>

David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com> writes:

>> > +test_expect_success 'fails silently when using -q with deleted reflogs' '
>> > +	ref=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
>> > +	: >.git/logs/refs/test &&
>> > +	git update-ref -m test refs/test "$ref" &&
>> 
>> I'm just curious, why not simply
>> 
>>    git branch test
>> ?
>
> Maybe it's a bad reason, but I wanted to replicate the behavior
> that git stash expects -- it writes to a ref outside of
> refs/heads/.  I thought it'd be good to exercise that same
> machinery since it will involve different code paths.

I think that is a very sensible thing to do.  Another reason to
avoid using "branch" when you care about what "update-ref" does is
that "branch" does more than what "update-ref" does.