Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> + git_snpath(ref_file, sizeof(ref_file), "%s", old->path);
???
> @@ -684,8 +709,8 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> if (opts.new_orphan_branch) {
> if (opts.new_branch)
> die("--orphan and -b are mutually exclusive");
> - if (opts.track > 0 || opts.new_branch_log)
> - die("--orphan cannot be used with -t or -l");
> + if (opts.track > 0)
> + die("--orphan should not be used with -t");
Why s/cannot/should not/? Just being curious.
> +test_expect_success 'giving up --orphan not committed when -l and core.logAllRefUpdates = false deletes reflog' '
> + git checkout master &&
> + git checkout -l --orphan eta &&
> + test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta &&
> + test_must_fail PAGER= git reflog show eta &&
> + git checkout master &&
> + ! test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta &&
> + test_must_fail PAGER= git reflog show eta
> +'
I don't quite understand the title of this test, nor am I convinced that
testing for .git/logs/refs/heads/eta is necessarily a good thing to do
here. "eta" branch is first prepared in an unborn state with the working
tree and the index prepared to commit what is in 'master', and the first
"git reflog" would fail because there is no eta branch at that point yet.
Moving to 'master' from that state would still leave "eta" branch unborn
and we will not see "git reflog" for that branch (we will fail "git log
eta" too for that matter). Perhaps two "test -f .git/logs/refs/heads/eta"
shouldn't be there? It feels that it is testing a bit too low level an
implementation detail.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html