Re: [PATCH 2/5] Provide branch name in error message when using @{u}

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 04/11/2012 08:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx>  writes:

diff --git a/t/ b/t/
index 1342915..a00b689 100755
--- a/t/
+++ b/t/
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message when no upstream' '

  test_expect_success '@{u} error message when no upstream' '
-	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
+	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}master${sq}
  	fatal: Needed a single revision
  	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify @{u} 2>actual&&

I am not sure if saying "... for 'master'" is better or "... for the
current branch" is better.  Using different wording reflects the fact that
the user gave "@{u}" and not "master@{u}".

I think that explicitly providing the name of the branch is useless when
the user has a properly configured git prompt which always shows the current branch. But not everybody does that, and for such people providing the name in the error message could be useful.

But I do not care too deeply.
I don't either. I'll wait to see if other people chime in.

> Either way, it is a vast improvement over
> the current "... for ''" output.
And the "detached" case is definitely better.

Thank you for the review. I'll send a reroll taking into account your and Matthieu's comments in a day or two if nobody else comments.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Free Online Dating]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Free Online Dating]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google