Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Also, don't imply that `git pull` is only for merging.
>
> Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
I appreciate, but do not need, the credit; in any way, I didn't
co-author this one.
> Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> remote.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index a81f2e2f17..1fe86f8b23 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -2323,7 +2323,10 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
> base, ours, theirs);
> if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS))
> strbuf_addstr(sb,
> - _(" (use \"git pull\" to merge the remote branch into yours)\n"));
> + _(" (To reconcile your local changes with the work at the remote, you can\n"
> + " use 'git pull' and then 'git push'. To discard the work at the remote\n"
> + " and replace it with what you did (alone), you can use\n"
> + " 'git push --force'.)\n"));
> }
Since wt-status.c:wt_longstatus_print_tracking() calls this
function, I would expect that this change would manifest as test
breakage in "git status" (or "git commit" whose commit log edit
buffer is examined) tests. Are we lacking test coverage?
Thanks.
