On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:56:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > When the remote tells us that the "unpack" step failed, we > > show an error message. However, unless you are familiar with > > the internals of send-pack and receive-pack, it was not > > clear that this represented an error on the remote side. > > Let's re-word to make that more obvious. > > > > Likewise, when we got an unexpected packet from the other > > end, we complained with a vague message but did not actually > > show the packet. Let's fix that. > > Both make sense. > > > And finally, neither message was marked for translation. The > > message from the remote probably won't be translated, but > > there's no reason we can't do better for the local half. > > Hmm, OK. I'll admit that I don't actually use the translations myself, being a native English speaker. So I am just guessing that somebody for whom English is a second language would rather see the first half in a more intelligible format. That at least tells them what the second half _is_, so they might be able to search for the error with more context. If my guess is wrong, though, I'm happy to retract that part or bump it out to a separate patch. -Peff