On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:27:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Marios Titas <redneb@xxxxxxx> writes:- && !(ident_config_given & IDENT_NAME_GIVEN)) - die("user.useConfigOnly set but no name given"); + && !(ident_config_given & IDENT_NAME_GIVEN)) { + fputs(env_hint, stderr); + die("no name was given and auto-detection is disabledHmph. I do not think that this is making the message "more informative". When a user hits this error, the old message allowed the user to easily see how to toggle the "disable auto-detection" bit off to let the code continue by telling the name of the configuration, but the updated message hides that name, making it harder for the user to disable the disabling of auto-detection. I can buy the argument that this change helps the user by making the message "less" informative, though. By discouraging the users from toggling the user.useConfigOnly bit off, it indirectly makes the other option to work around this error condition, i.e. giving a name more explicitly, more appetizing.
Yeah, maybe informative is not the right word. What I meant is that it directs the user to do the "git config user.name" thing, which is likely the most appropriate course of action in this situation. In any event, I think printing the env_hint message would be really helpful in this case.
-- 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