On 2021-05-17 06:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> We do have untranslated die() nearby for the same option, which may > >> want to be cleaned up either in a preliminary patch, or in this > >> same patch as an unrelated fix "while we are at it". > > > > I would not mind preparing a preliminary patch that cleans up all > > untranslated user-facing calls to die(). My editor finds 15 of those > > in rev-parse.c, and I think they all qualify. > > > > If you'd rather not touch unrelated code paths I'll instead include > > it in v2 as an unrelated fix in the same commit. > > I am puzzled by the last paragraph. Somebody who does not want to see > "unrelated" codepaths touched would appreciate if a commit that fixes > this segfault does not touch them at the same time. Apologies, I was being unclear here. I was meaning to offer either cleaning up all calls to die() in a separate patch, or fixing only the nearby occurrence that you mentioned in the same patch. I had implicitly assumed you had seen the other untranslated messages already but only wanted to fix the one for the same option (ie in a nearby, "related" path). > In any case, I now counted existing die() messages in this file, and > among 15 of them, only 1 is marked with _(...). I think that it > is the best to apply the patch as-is (without _(...)), adding one > untranslated message to the file. Will do. > Then, on top of this change, the 15 untranslated messages can be > marked with _(...) a separate commit (and it does not even have to > be done by you). I don't mind doing this, so I'll include it. > That's good, too. Simple. > > Thanks. Thanks a lot for your feedback, I'll be sending v2 along shortly. -- Wolfgang
