William Duclot <william.duclot@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> - 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? Another potential source of confusion is if we are seeing "a" conflict, or multiple ones. I'd say it is OK to treat the whole thing as "a conflict" that Git needs help with by the user editing multiple files and using multiple "git add" or "git rm". So "mark it as resolved with 'git add/rm'" is fine, I would think, but anything that I say about UI's understandability to new people needs to be taken with a large grain of salt ;-). > ... 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? Surely, as long as I can depend on other reviewers who are more passionate about end-user experience than I am, I'll take such patches with their help. Thanks.
