Hi Junio,
Le 2024-02-25 à 23:35, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
> Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(other_head); i++)
>> + if (!read_ref_full(other_head[i],
>> + RESOLVE_REF_READING | RESOLVE_REF_NO_RECURSE,
>> + oid, NULL)) {
>> + if (is_null_oid(oid))
>> + die(_("%s is a symbolic ref?"), other_head[i]);
>> + return other_head[i];
>> + }
>> +
>> + die(_("--merge requires one of the pseudorefs MERGE_HEAD, CHERRY_PICK_HEAD, REVERT_HEAD or REBASE_HEAD"));
>> +}
>
> Just a minor nit, but reacting to recent "passive-aggressive"
> message change in another thread, perhaps we should stop asking a
> rhetorical question like the new message and instead state what we
> detected and what we consider is an error condition as a fact in
> them.
>
> The last die() in the above helper function used to be such a
> rhetorical question "--merge without HEAD?" but now it reads much
> better. The one about symbolic ref is new in this series, and we
> can avoid making it rhetorical from the get go. Perhaps "%s exists
> but it is a symbolic ref" or something?
Ok, I can make that change. I agree we should maybe keep these rethorical
questions to 'BUG' calls...
Thanks,
Philippe.
