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

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/11/2012 08:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx>  writes:
>
> > diff --git a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> > index 1342915..a00b689 100755
> > --- a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> > +++ b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message when no upstream' '
> >
> >   test_expect_success '@{u} error message when no upstream' '
> >   	cat>expect<<-EOF&&
> > -	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
> > +	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}master${sq}
> >   	fatal: Needed a single revision
> >   	EOF
> >   	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}".
Hi,

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.
Thanks!

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.

Zbyszek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html