Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 11:44:57PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
>> +test_expect_success 'stash export and import round-trip stashes' '
>> [...]
>> + git stash export --to-ref refs/heads/foo &&
>
> Here we export to a name in the refs/heads/ namespace...
>
>> +test_expect_success 'stash export can accept specified stashes' '
>> [...]
>> + git stash export --to-ref bar stash@{1} stash@{0} &&
>
> ...but here we are writing to the top-level .git/bar. We do currently
> allow that, but there's been discussion of locking this down a bit
> further (requiring BAR or even BAR_HEAD at the top-level). Should this
> be refs/heads/bar?
>
>> +test_expect_success 'stash can import and export zero stashes' '
>> [...]
>> + git stash export --to-ref baz &&
>
> Ditto here.
>
> I noticed because I have a patch series from last summer tightening
> these rules (it got derailed by some conflicting work, and I've been
> meaning to pick it back up). I can certainly adjust these tests as part
> of that series, but if you're re-rolling anyway, it might be nice to do
> it now.
True, and exported one is a sort-of-normal-looking isolated history,
so it does not have any strong reason to be at the top level. But I
am curious what your plans are to deal with .git/refs/stash itself?
Thanks.
