On Fri, Jan 14 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. I don't mind changing it, but the reason I re-quoted it is because your reply seemed to suggest that you had skimmed past that part before making your original comment, not to merely repeat myself. I.e. it's basically suggesting "how about?..." without addressing the "I intentionally didn't do this, because..." argument in the commit message. But sure, I'll add a translatable message for this edge case in a re-roll.
