Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> While I'm at it add a --fork-point test, strictly speaking this is >> redundant to the existing '' test, as no argument to rebase implies >> --fork-point. But now it's easier to grep for tests that explicitly >> stress --fork-point. > > That makes sense. > >> +test_expect_success 'setup branches and remote tracking' ' >> + git tag -l >tags && >> + for tag in $(cat tags) >> + do >> + git branch branch-$tag $tag || return 1 >> + done && > > I don't think we need this extra tmpfile and cat, do we? I.e., > > for tag in $(git tag -l) > > would work. I think it is being (overly) defensive not to lose the exit status of "git tag". > We should probably avoid depending on the exact output of > the porcelain "tag", though. Maybe: > > git for-each-ref \ > --format='create refs/heads/branch-%(refname:strip=2) %(objectname)' \ > refs/tags | > git update-ref --stdin > > which has the added bonus of using a constant number of processes. Much better ;-)
