Junio C Hamano writes: > William Duclot <william.duclot@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh > > index 2cf73b88e..50457f687 100755 > > --- a/git-rebase.sh > > +++ b/git-rebase.sh > > @@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ LF=' > > ' > > ok_to_skip_pre_rebase= > > resolvemsg=" > > -$(gettext 'When you have resolved this problem, run "git rebase --continue". > > -If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git rebase --skip" instead. > > -To check out the original branch and stop rebasing, run "git rebase --abort".') > > +$(gettext 'Resolve this conflict manually, mark it as resolved with "git add <conflicted_file>", > > +then run "git rebase --continue". > > +You can instead skip this commit: run "git rebase --skip". > > +To stop the whole rebasing and get back to your pre-rebase state, run "git rebase --abort".') > > " > > I find the updated one easier to follow in general. > Disecting the phrases in the above: > > - The original said "When you have resolved this problem", without > giving a guidance how to resolve, and without saying what the > problem is. The updated one says "conflict" to clarify the > "problem", and suggests "git add" as the tool to use after a > manual resolition. > > Modulo that there are cases where "git rm" is the right tool, the > updated one is strict improvement. I also wrote "<conflicted_file>" when there could be several. Maybe 'mark it as resolved with "git add/rm"' would be a better (and shorter) formulation? > - The original said "to check out the original branch and stop > rebasing", and the updated one says "to stop and get back to", > which is in a more logical order. > > "the whole rebasing" used as a noun feels something is missing > there, though. I wonder if "To get back to the state before you > started 'rebase -i', run 'git rebase --abort'" is sufficient, > without saying anything further about abandoning the rebase in > progress (i.e. "and stop rebasing" or "stop the whole rebasing"). Definitely seems clearer to me: straight to the point. > Thanks. Happy to see this patch seems interesting to you. I feel like a lot of git messages could be improved this way to offer a UI more welcoming to inexperienced user (which is a *broad* segment of users). But I am not aware of the cost of translation of this kind of patch: would several patches like this one be welcomed?
