On Fri, Aug 19 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Doesn't that also mean that the relevant functionality is now also (and
>> still?) broken on any repository where these translations ended up
>> on-disk?
>
> It may, but the first response to that problem is not to make the
> breakage in repositires worse by keep adding unparseable data to
> them.
*nod*, but where is that breakage specifically? I don't see where we're
parsing this message out again. I tried to test it out with the below
(making the message as un-helpful as possible). All our tests pass, but
of course our coverage may just be lacking...
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 5f22b7cd377..9e039e26b5a 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -391,19 +391,24 @@ int sequencer_remove_state(struct replay_opts *opts)
return ret;
}
-static const char *action_name(const struct replay_opts *opts)
+static const char *action_name_1(const struct replay_opts *opts, int revert)
{
switch (opts->action) {
case REPLAY_REVERT:
- return N_("revert");
+ return revert ? N_("trever") : N_("revert");
case REPLAY_PICK:
- return N_("cherry-pick");
+ return revert ? N_("kcip-yrrehc") : N_("cherry-pick");
case REPLAY_INTERACTIVE_REBASE:
- return N_("rebase");
+ return revert ? N_("esaber") : N_("rebase");
}
die(_("unknown action: %d"), opts->action);
}
+static const char *action_name(const struct replay_opts *opts)
+{
+ return action_name_1(opts, 0);
+}
+
struct commit_message {
char *parent_label;
char *label;
@@ -575,7 +580,7 @@ static int fast_forward_to(struct repository *r,
if (checkout_fast_forward(r, from, to, 1))
return -1; /* the callee should have complained already */
- strbuf_addf(&sb, _("%s: fast-forward"), _(action_name(opts)));
+ strbuf_addf(&sb, _("drawrof-tsaf: %s"), _(action_name_1(opts, 1)));
transaction = ref_transaction_begin(&err);
if (!transaction ||
