Hi Junio,
On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Or do you want the error messages to also use camelCased IDs, i.e.
> >
> > warning in tag $tag: missingTaggerEntry: invalid format ...
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > warning in tag $tag: missing-tagger-entry: invalid format ...
> >
> > ? It is easy to do, but looks slightly uglier to this developer's eyes...
>
> Do you really need to know what I think?
Well, but yes ;-)
> Can I say "The latter is probably slightly better, but both look ugly to
> me"?
Of course you can say that! ;-) The problem these ugly messages try to
solve is to give the user a hint which setting to change if they want to
override the default behavior, though...
> If we want a human readable message
>
> "warning: tag object lacks tagger field '$tag'"
>
> would be my preference.
>
> But I personally think it may not be necessary to give a pretty
> message that later can go through l10n here. If we take that
> position, it is just a machine-readble error token, so I'd say
> whichever way you find more readable is OK.
Okay, I will leave it as-is, then.
> >> Should these be tied to receive-pack ones in any way? E.g. if you
> >> set fsck.missingEmail to ignore, you do not have to do the same for
> >> receive and accept a push with the specific error turned off?
> >>
> >> Not a rhetorical question. I can see it argued both ways. The
> >> justification to defend the position of not tying these two I would
> >> have is so that I can be more strict to newer breakages (i.e. not
> >> accepting a push that introduce a new breakage by not ignoring with
> >> receive.fsck.*) while allowing breakages that are already present.
> >> The justification for the opposite position is to make it more
> >> convenient to write a consistent policy. Whichever way is chosen,
> >> we would want to see the reason left in the log message so that
> >> people do not have to wonder what the original motivation was when
> >> they decide if it is a good idea to change this part of the code.
> >
> > Hmm. I really tried very hard to separate the fsck.* from the receive.*
> > settings because the two code paths already behave differently:...
> >
> > If you agree, I would rephrase this line of argument and add it to the
> > commit message. Do you agree?
>
> Yeah, that reasoning sounds sensible.
I added this paragraph:
In the same spirit that `git receive-pack`'s usage of the fsck machinery
differs from `git fsck`'s – some of the non-fatal warnings in `git fsck`
are fatal with `git receive-pack` when receive.fsckObjects = true, for
example – we strictly separate the fsck.* from the receive.fsck.*
settings.
Ciao,
Dscho