Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > A refactoring[1] done as part of the recent conversion of > 'git submodule add' to builtin, changed the error message > shown when a Git directory already exists locally for a submodule > name. Before the refactoring, the error used to appear like so: > > [...] > > As one could observe the remote information is printed along with the > first line rather than on its own line. Also, there's an additional > newline following output. > > Make the error message consistent with the error message that used to be > printed before the refactoring. Thanks for catching this and sending a patch! > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210710074801.19917-5-raykar.ath@xxxxxxxxx/#t > > Signed-off-by: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Even with this patch, the error message is still not fully consistent with the one that > used to be printed before the refactoring. Here's the diff: > > 3c3 > < If you want to reuse this local git directory instead of cloning again from > --- >> fatal: If you want to reuse this local git directory instead of cloning again from > 6c6 > < or you are unsure what this means choose another name with the '--name' option. > --- >> or if you are unsure what this means, choose another name with the '--name' option. > > > The first part shows that it is additionally prefixed with 'fatal: '. While the 'fatal :' prefix > made sense in other cases, I wonder if it's helpful in this case as the message being > printed is an informative one. Should we avoid using 'die' to print this message? I had initially implemented that message as an fprintf() with return for the same reason, but Junio suggested we die() instead to keep the conversion more faithful to the original [1]. Although now that I think of it, it feels like a tradeoff between faithfulness to the original code and faithfulness to the original behaviour. I also think this change is fairly inconsequential and easily reversible so I am fine with it being done either way. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqk0n03k84.fsf@gitster.g/ > The second part of the diff shows that there's some small grammatcial tweaks in the last > line. While I appreciate the intention, I'm not very sure if this change is a strict > improvement. I wonder about this as the original sounded good enough to me and thus it > feels like the change in message is triggering unnecesssary translation work. Should > we avoid the change? Or does it actually seem like an improvement to the message? I don't think that extra 'if' was intended. I think it's better to avoid the change I inadvertently introduced. > builtin/submodule--helper.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > index 3cbde305f3..560be07091 100644 > --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c > +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c > @@ -2824,7 +2824,7 @@ static int add_submodule(const struct add_data *add_data) > if (is_directory(submod_gitdir_path)) { > if (!add_data->force) { > fprintf(stderr, _("A git directory for '%s' is found " > - "locally with remote(s):"), > + "locally with remote(s):\n"), > add_data->sm_name); > show_fetch_remotes(stderr, add_data->sm_name, > submod_gitdir_path); > @@ -2835,7 +2835,7 @@ static int add_submodule(const struct add_data *add_data) > "use the '--force' option. If the local git " > "directory is not the correct repo\n" > "or if you are unsure what this means, choose " > - "another name with the '--name' option.\n"), > + "another name with the '--name' option."), > add_data->realrepo); > } else { > printf(_("Reactivating local git directory for " --- Atharva Raykar ಅಥರ್ವ ರಾಯ್ಕರ್ अथर्व रायकर
