David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> 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. -- 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