From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:50:47 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/5] branch --set-upstream-to error-message improvements Message-ID: <7vmwtga9fs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130402190134.GA17784@sigill.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:51:13PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> Things slowly improve as people make suggestions. I think the thing that >> might have helped here is better advice when "set-upstream-to" is >> pointed to a ref that does not exist. >> >> Patches coming in a minute. > > Or 60 minutes. :) > > I'm not decided on whether the last patch is overkill or not (or even if > it is not, whether it may end up confusing people who do not fit into > one of the slots it suggests). Yeah, I am uneasy about 5/5 for the same reason. Also I feel a bit uneasy about 1/5 as well. >> If the user requests to --set-upstream-to a branch that does >> not exist, then either: >> >> 1. It was a typo. >> >> 2. They thought the branch should exist. Could there be the third? 3. She planned to create a branch after setting the configuration. I think it is remote (no pun intended) possibility, and I may be worried about people's existing workflow too much (as usual).