On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 04:07:13PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 09116a1c (refs: loosen over-strict "format" check, 2011-11-16) > introduced a test piece (originally in t5700) that expects to be > able to create a tag named "HEAD" and then a local clone using the > repository as its own reference works correctly. Later, another > test piece started using this tag starting at acede2eb (t5700: > document a failure of alternates to affect fetch, 2012-02-11). > > But the breakage 09116a1c fixed was not specific to the tagname > HEAD. It would have failed exactly the same way if the tag used > were foo instead of HEAD. > > Before forbidding "git tag" from creating "refs/tags/HEAD", update > these tests to use 'foo', not 'HEAD', as the name of the test tag. Yeah, I think this is worth doing independently. The patch looks good, though... > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ test_expect_success 'cloning with multiple references drops duplicates' ' > > test_expect_success 'clone with reference from a tagged repository' ' > ( > - cd A && git tag -a -m tagged HEAD > + cd A && git tag -a -m tagged foo > ) && > git clone --reference=A A I > ' > @@ -156,10 +156,10 @@ test_expect_success 'fetch with incomplete alternates' ' > git remote add J "file://$base_dir/J" && > GIT_TRACE_PACKET=$U.K git fetch J > ) && > - main_object=$(cd A && git for-each-ref --format="%(objectname)" refs/heads/main) && > + main_object=$(git -C A rev-parse --verify refs/heads/main) && > test -s "$U.K" && > ! grep " want $main_object" "$U.K" && > - tag_object=$(cd A && git for-each-ref --format="%(objectname)" refs/tags/HEAD) && > + tag_object=$(git -C A rev-parse --verify refs/tags/foo) && > ! grep " want $tag_object" "$U.K" > ' I notice that you swapped out "cd A && git" for "git -C A" in the second hunk (evne in the line which does not otherwise need to be touched). I think that is good, but is it worth doing the same in the first hunk? That would actually let us drop the subshell. -Peff
