Re: Improving merge failure message

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 8, 2009, 07:48 UTC
Message-ID: <7vk509ev20.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <fabb9a1e0909080020i3daa92aar952fc5102df62bdb@mail.gmail.com>

Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 09:15, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> +               /* would_overwrite */
>> +               "Your local changes to '%s' will be clobbered by merge.  Aborting.",
>
> Still scary, shouldn't that be s/will be/would be/ ?

Thanks, very true indeed. "It would be clobbered if we were to continue hence we abort." is how we want to explain our behaviour, so "would" is definitely better here.

>> +               /* not_uptodate_dir */
>> +               "Updating '%s' would lose untracked files in it.  Aborting.",

This is "merge would resolve to have a file X, but you have a directory X in your work tree and it is not empty" case.

I'll leave the exact wording up to other people. My primary focus was to end all of these messages with "Aborting."

This turns out to be a continuation of an older discussion thread back in May 2008, and I do not know if anybody took up the challenge back then. I wouldn't be surprised if "checkout", which was the topic of the old thread, has some other scary plumbing message still seeping through to the UI layer. Perhaps there are some other commands that needs similar kind of love.