On Mon, Apr 19 2021, Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > t/t7003-filter-branch.sh | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh b/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh > index cf30055c88dd..380bdf934317 100755 > --- a/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh > +++ b/t/t7003-filter-branch.sh > @@ -396,7 +396,9 @@ test_expect_success '--prune-empty is able to prune entire branch' ' > git branch prune-entire B && > git filter-branch -f --prune-empty --index-filter "git update-index --remove A.t B.t" prune-entire && > test_must_fail git rev-parse refs/heads/prune-entire && > - test_must_fail git reflog exists refs/heads/prune-entire > + if test_have_prereq REFFILES ; then > + test_must_fail git reflog exists refs/heads/prune-entire > + fi Same comment as on an earlier patch[1], i.e. aren't we leaking some "does the reflog exist" abstraction all the way up from reftable in a way that's broken here? 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/87pmyo3zvw.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
