Re: [PATCH] push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
>> Maybe something like
>>
>> die(_(
>> "You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the upstream of your\n"
>> "current branch '%s', without specifying a refspec.\n"),
>> remote->name, branch->name);
>>
>> would be harder to misunderstand.
>
> Perhaps. Do we need to rephrase it without using the word 'refspec'
> (e.g. "without telling me what to push"), or there is no point avoiding
> jargon because other jargons (i.e. 'remote' and 'upstream') already appear
> in the sentence?
"without telling me what to push" sounds good.
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>