Am Do., 18. Aug. 2022 um 17:02 Uhr schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18 2022, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
> > `error_resolve_conflict()` checks the untranslated action_name
> > parameter, so pass it as is.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > sequencer.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
> > index 51d75dfbe1..8b32b239b9 100644
> > --- a/sequencer.c
> > +++ b/sequencer.c
> > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ static struct tree *empty_tree(struct repository *r)
> > static int error_dirty_index(struct repository *repo, struct replay_opts *opts)
> > {
> > if (repo_read_index_unmerged(repo))
> > - return error_resolve_conflict(_(action_name(opts)));
> > + return error_resolve_conflict(action_name(opts));
> >
> > error(_("your local changes would be overwritten by %s."),
> > _(action_name(opts)));
> > @@ -3753,7 +3753,7 @@ static int do_reset(struct repository *r,
> > init_checkout_metadata(&unpack_tree_opts.meta, name, &oid, NULL);
> >
> > if (repo_read_index_unmerged(r)) {
> > - ret = error_resolve_conflict(_(action_name(opts)));
> > + ret = error_resolve_conflict(action_name(opts));
> > goto cleanup;
> > }
>
> Perhaps we should have the error_resolve_conflict() function take a
> "enum replay_action" instead? We could just do this more isolated
> change, but perhaps that "while-we're-at-it" would be acceptable to
> reduce the risk of running with this particular set of scissors.
>
> Then we could note in a comment in that function that we do not want to
> translate the string we'd get from action_name()...
Rather than setting out to do that, I'd retract 2/3/4 just to get 1
done, which was my original motivation ... or switch git to C again as
I did for a while in the past ...
