From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Gerlach Subject: Re: Is "show-ref -h" a good test for an empty repository? Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:21:16 -0400 Message-ID: <48C3E35C.2050903@feds.uwaterloo.ca> References: <48C1D2AE.3010001@feds.uwaterloo.ca> <20080906012941.GA2009@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 07 16:24:13 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KcLBR-000105-Q2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:24:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751107AbYIGOVW (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:21:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751135AbYIGOVW (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:21:22 -0400 Received: from mail.feds.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.194.182]:3059 "EHLO mail.feds.uwaterloo.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750919AbYIGOVV (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:21:21 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.13] (76-10-152-64.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.152.64]) by mail.feds.uwaterloo.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E7855543; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:21:20 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) In-Reply-To: <20080906012941.GA2009@coredump.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 08:45:34PM -0400, Eric Gerlach wrote: > >> I'm trying to test to see if "git diff --cached" will fail because there >> are no existing commits. I've come up with running "git show-ref -h -q" >> and testing its return value. My hypothesis is: If and only if >> git-show-ref succeeds then git-diff will succeed. >> >> Are my logic and assumptions sound? I'm a bit out of my git comfort zone >> here, so I'd like to get some validation from some people who know >> better. > > Maybe "git rev-parse --verify HEAD"? That seems like it would work too... any reason one would be better than the other? Cheers, Eric Gerlach