Subject: Re: [PATCH] stash: disable literal treatment when passing top pathspec

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:47:50 -0700

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 08 2022, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/22 10.12, Kyle Meyer wrote:
>>> +test_expect_success 'stash -u works with --literal-pathspecs' '
>>> +	>untracked &&
>>> +	git --literal-pathspecs stash -u &&
>>> +	test_path_is_missing untracked
>>> +'
>>
>> Why not "touch untracked" instead?
>
> The ">" form is correct here. We use "touch" when updating the timestamp
> to something in particular is important, but here we're just creating an
> empty file.

Maybe it is better to have it in CodingGuidelines or t/README?

Thanks.