Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Instead, we can just be more succinct and say "we can't
> delete this because we couldn't find it". So before:
>
> $ git push origin :bogus
> error: unable to push to unqualified destination: bogus
> The destination refspec neither matches an existing ref on the remote nor
> begins with refs/, and we are unable to guess a prefix based on the source ref.
> error: failed to push some refs to '$URL'
>
> and now:
>
> $ git push origin :bogus
> error: unable to delete 'bogus': remote ref does not exist
> error: failed to push some refs to '$URL'
This is telling a truth ($GIT_DIR/refs/bogus does not exist) but not
the whole truth; while I tend to agree that it is better than the
original (especially with ", and we are unable to guess..." part),
given that the above request would delete refs/tags/bogus or
refs/heads/bogus if they existed on the "origin", I am a bit worried
that it may send an incorrect message to novice users.
unable to delete 'bogus': no branch or tag with that name
might allay my worries, but I am not extremely happy with that
wording, either.
> I think this would help. I used "remote ref does not exist"
> because that is the simplest explanation for the user.
> However, given that we will try to push a fully qualified
> ref that does not exist, a more accurate message might
> "destination refspec did not match" or something similar. I
> prefer the former, though, as it less arcane.
Yeah, I do understand why you phrased that way, but still..
--
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