From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:00:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Provide branch name in error message when using @{u}
Message-ID: <7v7gxmkv1m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1334161035-26355-3-git-send-email-zbyszek@in.waw.pl>

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@in.waw.pl> writes:

> diff --git a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> index 1342915..a00b689 100755
> --- a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> +++ b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message when no upstream' '
>  
>  test_expect_success '@{u} error message when no upstream' '
>  	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> -	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
> +	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}master${sq}
>  	fatal: Needed a single revision
>  	EOF
>  	test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify @{u} 2>actual &&

I am not sure if saying "... for 'master'" is better or "... for the
current branch" is better.  Using different wording reflects the fact that
the user gave "@{u}" and not "master@{u}".

But I do not care too deeply.  Either way, it is a vast improvement over
the current "... for ''" output.

And the "detached" case is definitely better.

> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message with misspelt branch' '
>  
>  test_expect_success '@{u} error message when not on a branch' '
>  	cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> -	error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
> +	error: HEAD does not point to a branch
>  	fatal: Needed a single revision
>  	EOF

Thanks.