Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + touch empty && > > Use of "touch" gives a wrong impression that you care about the file > timestamp; use something like ": >empty &&" instead when you care > about the presence of the file and do not care about its timestamp. I just realized that this is even more important in this case not to use "touch". The test that uses this file cares not just the presence, but it deeply cares that its contents is empty. The thing it least cares about is its timestamp. The purpose of using "touch" is to update the timestamp, to keep the current contents if it exists, and to ensure it exists (as a side effect), in the decreasing order of importance. Use of the command here misleads the readers. Thanks.
