git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2] branch: change the error messages to be more meaningful

From
Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
Date
Oct 2, 2017, 17:19 UTC
Message-ID
<1506964786.3504.3.camel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20170821133608.5652-1-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19:06 +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
Show 53 quoted lines
> The error messages shown when the branch command is misused
> by supplying it wrong number of parameters wasn't meaningful.
> That's because it used the the phrase "too many branches"
> assuming all parameters to be "valid" branch names. It's not
> always the case as exemplified below,
> 
>         $ git branch
>           foo
>         * master
> 
>         $ git branch -m foo foo old
>         fatal: too many branches for a rename operation
> 
> Change the messages to be more general thus making no assumptions
> about the "parameters".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Changes in v2:
> 
>     - changed the wordings of the error message
> 
>  builtin/branch.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c
> index a3bd2262b..62981d358 100644
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -707,12 +707,12 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		else if (argc == 2)
>  			rename_branch(argv[0], argv[1], rename > 1);
>  		else
> -			die(_("too many branches for a rename operation"));
> +			die(_("too many arguments for a rename operation"));
>  	} else if (new_upstream) {
>  		struct branch *branch = branch_get(argv[0]);
>  
>  		if (argc > 1)
> -			die(_("too many branches to set new upstream"));
> +			die(_("too many arguments to set new upstream"));
>  
>  		if (!branch) {
>  			if (!argc || !strcmp(argv[0], "HEAD"))
> @@ -735,7 +735,7 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>  		struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>  
>  		if (argc > 1)
> -			die(_("too many branches to unset upstream"));
> +			die(_("too many arguments to unset upstream"));
>  
>  		if (!branch) {
>  			if (!argc || !strcmp(argv[0], "HEAD"))

I was recently searching to find the patches have gone missing in to the void for no obvious reason and found this. Should I consider this to be "Dropped" in terms of the "What's cooking" emails? or has this just not received the required attention?

--- Kaartic

Previous: Kaartic SivaraamNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 6 of 12 in “branch: change the error messages to be more meaningful”
  1. branch: change the error messages to be more meaningfulKaartic Sivaraam, Jul 25, 2017
  2. branch: change the error messages to be more meaningfulKaartic Sivaraam, Jul 25, 2017
  3. Kaartic SivaraamJul 25, 2017
  4. branch: change the error messages to be more meaningfulKaartic Sivaraam, Jul 30, 2017
  5. branch: change the error messages to be more meaningfulKaartic Sivaraam, Aug 21, 2017
  6. Kaartic SivaraamOct 2, 2017
  7. Junio C HamanoOct 3, 2017
  8. Kaartic SivaraamOct 3, 2017
  9. Junio C HamanoOct 4, 2017
  10. Kaartic SivaraamOct 4, 2017
  11. Junio C HamanoOct 5, 2017
  12. Kaartic SivaraamOct 5, 2017

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.