On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:29:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> diff --git a/transport-helper.c b/transport-helper.c
> >> index cea787c..4d98567 100644
> >> --- a/transport-helper.c
> >> +++ b/transport-helper.c
> >> @@ -785,6 +785,9 @@ static int push_refs_with_export(struct transport *transport,
> >> struct string_list revlist_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> >> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> >>
> >> + if (!data->refspecs)
> >> + die("remote-helper doesn't support push; refspec needed");
> >
> > I think the "refspec needed" text is likely to be confusing if an
> > end-user ever sees this message. I'm not sure how we can provide useful
> > feedback for both remote helper authors and end-users though.
>
> This "refspecs" only come via the helper and not directly from the
> end user, no?
>
> If that is the case, I do not think "confusing" is much of an issue.
> Not _("localizing") is also the right thing to do. We may want to
> say "BUG: " at front to clarify it is not the end-user's fault, but
> a problem they may want to report. If we at this point know what
> helper attempted export without giving refspecs, it may help to show
> it here, so that developers will know with what helper the user
> had problems with.
I like this idea. Perhaps we should say "Bug in remote helper; refspec
needed with export", so that it clearly indicates to both end-users and
remote helper authors that the error is in the remote helper.
--
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