Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I still think the trade-off of not doing that discussed in the commit > message is better, i.e. (to quote upthread): > > We could detect that and emit a "%s [bad tag object]" message (to go > with the existing generic "%s [bad object]"), but I don't think it's > worth the effort. Users are unlikely to ever run into cases where > they've got a broken object that's also ambiguous, and in case they do > output that's a bit nonsensical beats wasting translator time on this > obscure edge case. Writing the above (and quoting it again to make me respond to it) have already wasted a lot more time than a better solution that does not lead to a misleading output, especially given that it was given for free to you already.
