From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:16:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] branch: deprecate --set-upstream and show help if we detect possible mistaken use
Message-ID: <7vtxvt2ts6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1345748186-1081-1-git-send-email-cmn@elego.de>

Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@elego.de> writes:

> The 'track' in the message is still not great, but it does fit with
> the one above. Maybe if we make it say "If youw wanted [...] track the
> remote-tracking branch 'origin/master'" it would be clearer?

The verb "track" in the phrase "remote-tracking branch" means "keep
track of the branch at the remote, by storing a copy of the last
observed state of it".  In the same sentence, the verb "track"
elsewhere is used to describe what the branch B whose upstream is
set to B@{upstream} does against B@{upstream}, but that is not
"keeping a copy"---it is doing an entirely different thing.

If we say that the branch B whose upstream is set to B@{upstream} is
"building on top of B@{upstream}", "integrating with B@{upstream}",
"forked from B@{upstream}", etc., without using the verb "track"
that already means something else (i.e. keeps track of the copy of
last observed state), it would reduce the confusion, but I do not
think it would clarify anything if the verb "track" is used for
that.

As usual, because I am not the best source of phrasing, others may
find a better verb than "builds", "forks", or "integrates", though.

> I've simplified and tightened the logic. Now it will only show the
> undo message if the branch didn't exist locally and there is a
> remote-tracking branch of the same name.

The updated and simplified logic reads quite straight-forward, and
looks good.  It is likely that the message will be reworded and also
localized in the future, so it would make sense to use test_i18ncmp
from the day one, though.

Thanks.  Will queue.