From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:01:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense Message-ID: <7vhawy54nd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <7vlima5591.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano writes: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> I worry that a beginner seeing this message would think it means that >> when "master" is set up to track origin/master that there is no way to >> push that branch to any other repository. >> >> 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? How about phrasing it this way? Note that the short-looking first line (in the context) and the second line (updated) of the message are very much on purpose, to give '%s' enough room to expand without overflowing the usual terminal width. builtin/push.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/push.c b/builtin/push.c index 765b19c..7a20036 100644 --- a/builtin/push.c +++ b/builtin/push.c @@ -99,7 +99,9 @@ static void setup_push_upstream(struct remote *remote) "refusing to push."), branch->name); if (strcmp(branch->remote_name, remote->name)) die(_("You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the " - "upstream of your\ncurrent branch '%s'.\n"), + "upstream of your\ncurrent branch '%s',\n" + "without telling me to push which local branch to\n" + " update which remote branch with."), remote->name, branch->name); strbuf_addf(&refspec, "%s:%s", branch->name, branch->merge[0]->src);