On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov
<kostix+git@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:10:05AM +0000, Kerry, Richard wrote:
>
> [...]
>> > > @@ -1940,7 +1940,7 @@ static void am_resolve(struct am_state *state)
>> > >
>> > > if (unmerged_cache()) {
>> > > printf_ln(_("You still have unmerged paths in your index.\n"
>> > > - "Did you forget to use 'git add'?"));
>> > > + "You might want to use 'git add' on them."));
>> >
>> > This case is *not* an "rhetorical question is the most succinct way to convey
>> > the information" situation; I think this rewrite is a definite improvement.
>> > "You might want to 'git add' them" may be more succinct, though.
>>
>> "You might want to use 'git add' on them." It isn't about what you
>> *want* to use, it's what you *need* to use, isn't it? And I'm not
>> happy about "on them". I'm not sure quite why, but the phrasing seems
>> odd. How about "You might need to use 'git add'.", or "You might need
>> to use 'git add' first.", or "'git add' needs to be used to add
>> files." , or "'git add' needs to be used before any other git command
>> may be used.".
>
> Why not just
>
> You should run `git add` on each file with resolved conflicts to mark
> them as such.
>
> I'm not an English speaker but IMHO this phrasing concentrates on the
> essense of the problem. It's far from being succint, unfortunately.
>
> I also wonder what to do with "deleted by them" state of certain files
> which are also "unmerged" but `git add`-ing them would be a wrong thing
> to do if we want to accept the upstream's decision to delete the file.
> So maybe something like
>
> You might run `git rm` on a file to accept "deleted by them" for it.
>
> appended to the original hint would be good.
I think something like this sounds much better. I think being a bit
more verbose is good here, if you know how to solve conflicts you just
go "oops, forgot", but for confused users who don't know how, it's
better to explain things a bit more verbosely.