From: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:42:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [fixup PATCH] push: Provide situational hints for non-fast-forward errors
Message-ID: <4F64E920.7010008@in.waw.pl>
In-Reply-To: <20120317184649.GA320@gmail.com>

On 03/17/2012 07:46 PM, Christopher Tiwald wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 06:10:35PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>   static const char message_advice_use_upstream[] =
>> -	N_("Some of your local branches were stale with respect to their\n"
>> -	   "remote counterparts. If you did not intend to push these branches,\n"
>> -	   "you may want to set the 'push.default' configuration variable to\n"
>> -	   "'current' or 'upstream' to push only the current branch.");
>> +	N_("Updates were rejected because a tip of your branch is behind the remote.\n"
>> +	   "If you did not intend to push that branch, you may want to explicitly\n"
>> +	   "specify branches to push or set the 'push.default' configuration variable"
>> +	   "to 'current' or 'upstream' to always push only the current branch.");
>
> I prefer the "Some of your local..." language to "Updates were
> rejected..." as a reader, but I think you're right about providing the
> reason git rejected the push up front.
>
> My concern about this particular message is "tip of your branch is behind
> the remote" reads to me like my _current_ branch is the offender, when
> that cannot be the case (it'd hit message_advice_pull_before_push
> first). Maybe something like this might make it clearer?
>
> "Updates were rejected because a pushed branch tip is behind its remote
> counterpart. If you did not intend to push that branch, you may want to
> explicitly specify branches to push or set the 'push.default' configuration
> variable to 'current' or 'upstream' to always push only the current branch."
Yeah, that's better.

Zbyszek