1

I have realized that I can use git update-ref to fast-forward existing branch that I am not on. Then I have found that similar thing can be done by git branch -f. I understand that git update-ref is much more flexible (it can move any ref), however it could be dangerous. So is it better to use git branch -f? Are there any differences in these two commands in this particular scenarios? (Except of that I can specify custom ref log message.)

user2528260
  • 115
  • 1
  • 5
TN.
  • 18,874
  • 30
  • 99
  • 157
  • FYI: Even with `update-ref` there is no real danger of losing commits, as described in the answer you linked to. The commits will be still there and you can stil easily recover them. – Sascha Wolf Nov 05 '14 at 12:38

1 Answers1

2

With git branch -f, it would refuse to update the branch if it is the one checked out (so if it is the "current branch")

git update-ref has not that limitation.

Qqwy adds another difference in the comments:

  • git branch -f <branchname> [<start-point>] will create a new branch called <branchname> if it did not exist.
  • git update-ref <branchname> <newvalue> will do nothing in this case.
Community
  • 1
  • 1
VonC
  • 1,262,500
  • 529
  • 4,410
  • 5,250
  • It seems like `update-ref` doesn't provide the same autocomplete features `branch -f` does. Is it possible to change git's behaviour to create the same experience for `update-ref`? – Sascha Wolf Nov 07 '14 at 08:57
  • @Zeeker that would be a good separate question: I haven't look too much in the autocompletion part of those commands. – VonC Nov 07 '14 at 09:27
  • I've asked [another question](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26798130/expand-gits-autocomplete-feature-to-plumbing-commands). – Sascha Wolf Nov 07 '14 at 09:33