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

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

From
Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
Date
Aug 21, 2017, 13:34 UTC
Message-ID
<20170821133440.5552-1-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<1500107583.1850.4.camel@gmail.com>

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"))
-- 
2.14.0.rc1.434.g6eded367a
Previous: Kaartic SivaraamNext: Kaartic Sivaraam
Message 19 of 24 in “Why doesn't merge fail if message has only sign-off?”
  1. Kaartic SivaraamJul 2, 2017
  2. Junio C HamanoJul 3, 2017
  3. Kaartic SivaraamJul 4, 2017
  4. merge-message: change meaning of "empty merge message"Kaartic Sivaraam, Jul 6, 2017
  5. Kevin DaudtJul 6, 2017
  6. Kaartic SivaraamJul 6, 2017
  7. commit & merge: modularize the empty message validatorKaartic Sivaraam, Jul 11, 2017
  8. Kaartic SivaraamJul 11, 2017
  9. Junio C HamanoJul 11, 2017
  10. Kaartic SivaraamJul 13, 2017
  11. Junio C HamanoJul 13, 2017
  12. Kaartic SivaraamJul 14, 2017
  13. Christian BrabandtJul 17, 2017
  14. Junio C HamanoJul 17, 2017
  15. Kaartic SivaraamJul 13, 2017
  16. Junio C HamanoJul 13, 2017
  17. Kaartic SivaraamJul 14, 2017
  18. Kaartic SivaraamJul 15, 2017
  19. branch: change the error messages to be more meaningfulKaartic Sivaraam, Aug 21, 2017
  20. Kaartic SivaraamAug 21, 2017
  21. commit: change the meaning of an empty commit messageKaartic Sivaraam, Aug 21, 2017
  22. Junio C HamanoAug 24, 2017
  23. Kaartic SivaraamAug 31, 2017
  24. Kaartic SivaraamOct 2, 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.