From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?WmJpZ25pZXcgSsSZZHJ6ZWpld3NraS1Tem1law==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Provide branch name in error message when using @{u} Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:13:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4F860210.5030409@in.waw.pl> References: <1334161035-26355-1-git-send-email-zbyszek@in.waw.pl> <1334161035-26355-3-git-send-email-zbyszek@in.waw.pl> <7v7gxmkv1m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 00:13:53 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SI5nU-0002w2-0O for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:13:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933450Ab2DKWNr convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:13:47 -0400 Received: from kawka.in.waw.pl ([178.63.212.103]:34707 "EHLO kawka.in.waw.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753943Ab2DKWNr (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:13:47 -0400 Received: from 89-78-221-60.dynamic.chello.pl ([89.78.221.60] helo=[192.168.0.12]) by kawka.in.waw.pl with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SI5nK-0007yW-As; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:13:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120324 Icedove/10.0.3 In-Reply-To: <7v7gxmkv1m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 04/11/2012 08:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Zbigniew J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek writes: > >> diff --git a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstr= eam.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 wh= en 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 whe= n the user has a properly configured git prompt which always shows the=20 current branch. But not everybody does that, and for such people=20 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=20 and Matthieu's comments in a day or two if nobody else comments. Zbyszek