Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> fp = fdopen_lock_file(&lk, "w");
>> if (!fp)
>> - die_errno(_("unable to fdopen %s"), get_lock_file_path(&lk));
>> + die_errno(_("unable to fdopen %s"), sparse_filename);
>>
>> if (core_sparse_checkout_cone)
>> write_cone_to_file(fp, pl);
>> @@ -356,11 +355,13 @@ static int write_patterns_and_update(struct pattern_list *pl)
>> write_patterns_to_file(fp, pl);
>>
>> if (commit_lock_file(&lk))
>> - die_errno(_("unable to write %s"), get_locked_file_path(&lk));
>> + die_errno(_("unable to write %s"), sparse_filename);
>
> Note the difference between "get_lock" and "get_locked" in these two.
> The first will mention the tempfile name, and the second the destination
> filename (and sparse_filename is the latter).
I did consider ... to write %s.%s", sparse_filename, LOCK_SUFFIX)
but then thought that the final name is what is more relevant to the
end user. Yes, while correcting unrelated error, I shouldn't have
tried to improve unrelated end-user experience ;-).
> Will send v2 later tonight. Thanks, Patrick, for noticing the problem in
> the first place.
Yeah, thanks, both.
