From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:58:32 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense
Message-ID: <20120405195832.GA6885@burratino>
In-Reply-To: <7vlima5591.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

>> 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.