On 04/11/2012 08:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
diff --git a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
index 1342915..a00b689 100755
--- a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
+++ b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message when no upstream' '
test_expect_success '@{u} error message when no upstream' '
cat>expect<<-EOF&&
- error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
+ error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}master${sq}
fatal: Needed a single revision
EOF
test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify @{u} 2>actual&&
I am not sure if saying "... for 'master'" is better or "... for the
current branch" is better. Using different wording reflects the fact that
the user gave "@{u}" and not "master@{u}".
Hi,
I think that explicitly providing the name of the branch is useless when
the user has a properly configured git prompt which always shows the
current branch. But not everybody does that, and for such people
providing the name in the error message could be useful.
But I do not care too deeply.
I don't either. I'll wait to see if other people chime in.
> Either way, it is a vast improvement over
> the current "... for ''" output.
And the "detached" case is definitely better.
Thanks!
Thank you for the review. I'll send a reroll taking into account your
and Matthieu's comments in a day or two if nobody else comments.
Zbyszek
--
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