On Thu, Dec 09 2021, Glen Choo wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> > @@ -121,11 +168,18 @@ int install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, const char *origin, const
>>> > advise(_(tracking_advice),
>>> > origin ? origin : "",
>>> > origin ? "/" : "",
>>> > - shortname ? shortname : remote);
>>> > + remotes->items[0].string);
>>> >
>>> > return -1;
>>> > }
>>>
>>> When there is more than one item in remotes->items, this advice is
>>> _technically_ incorrect because --set-upstream-to only takes a single
>>> upstream branch. I think that supporting multiple upstreams in
>>> --set-upstream-to is a fairly niche use case and is out of scope of this
>>> series, so let's not pursue that option.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to replace the mention of --set-upstream-to with
>>> "git config add", but that's unfriendly to the >90% of the user
>>> population that doesn't want multiple merge entries.
>>>
>>> If we leave the advice as-is, even though it is misleading, a user who
>>> is sophisticated enough to set up multiple merge entries should also
>>> know that --set-upstream-to won't solve their problems, and would
>>> probably be able to fix their problems by mucking around with
>>> .git/config or git config.
>>>
>>> So I think it is ok to not change the advice and to only mention the
>>> first merge item. However, it might be worth marking this as NEEDSWORK
>>> so that subsequent readers of this file understand that this advice is
>>> overly-simplistic and might be worth fixing.
>>
>> Sounds like we should just have separate advice strings for single vs.
>> multiple merge configs?
>
> That sounds like a good idea if it's not too much work. Otherwise, a
> NEEDSWORK is still acceptable to me (but that said, I'm not an authority
> on this matter).
We haven't used Q_() with advise() yet, but there's no reason not to:
advise(Q_("fix your branch by doing xyz",
"fix your branches by doing xyz",
branches_nr));
