Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] transport-helper: clarify pushing without refspecs
- From
John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
- Date
- Apr 18, 2013, 18:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130418183540.GB2278@serenity.lan>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v38un7nnp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:29:30AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
> >> diff --git a/transport-helper.c b/transport-helper.c
> >> index cea787c..4d98567 100644
> >> --- a/transport-helper.c
> >> +++ b/transport-helper.c
> >> @@ -785,6 +785,9 @@ static int push_refs_with_export(struct transport *transport,
> >> struct string_list revlist_args = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
> >> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> >>
> >> + if (!data->refspecs)
> >> + die("remote-helper doesn't support push; refspec needed");
> >
> > I think the "refspec needed" text is likely to be confusing if an
> > end-user ever sees this message. I'm not sure how we can provide useful
> > feedback for both remote helper authors and end-users though.
>
> This "refspecs" only come via the helper and not directly from the
> end user, no?
>
> If that is the case, I do not think "confusing" is much of an issue.
> Not _("localizing") is also the right thing to do. We may want to
> say "BUG: " at front to clarify it is not the end-user's fault, but
> a problem they may want to report. If we at this point know what
> helper attempted export without giving refspecs, it may help to show
> it here, so that developers will know with what helper the user
> had problems with.I like this idea. Perhaps we should say "Bug in remote helper; refspec needed with export", so that it clearly indicates to both end-users and remote helper authors that the error is in the remote helper.