Re: Improving merge failure message

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 09:15, Junio C Hamano<gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +               /* would_overwrite */
>> +               "Your local changes to '%s' will be clobbered by merge.  Aborting.",
>
> Still scary, shouldn't that be s/will be/would be/ ?

Thanks, very true indeed.  "It would be clobbered if we were to continue
hence we abort." is how we want to explain our behaviour, so "would" is
definitely better here.

>> +               /* not_uptodate_dir */
>> +               "Updating '%s' would lose untracked files in it.  Aborting.",

This is "merge would resolve to have a file X, but you have a directory X
in your work tree and it is not empty" case.

I'll leave the exact wording up to other people.  My primary focus was to
end all of these messages with "Aborting."

This turns out to be a continuation of an older discussion thread back in
May 2008, and I do not know if anybody took up the challenge back then.  I
wouldn't be surprised if "checkout", which was the topic of the old
thread, has some other scary plumbing message still seeping through to the
UI layer.  Perhaps there are some other commands that needs similar kind
of love.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]