[PATCH] send-pack: reword non-fast-forward error message.

From

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

Date

Dec 22, 2005, 20:41 UTC

Message-ID

<7vu0d0j24z.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

In-Reply-To

<7vek45lyor.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:

> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> In a sense, both are "pull first?" situation, and it probably is
>>> more confusing to give different messages to the user in these
>>> two cases.  From the end-user point of view they are the same
>>> "remote is not strict subset.".
>>
>> In non-git'ish, does this mean "you're not up to date, so pull before 
>> pushing" ? If so, why not say so? I'm sure it could prevent a fair few 
>> problems for users (not least those new to scm's).

That is reasonable.  How about this?

First noticed by Johannes and seconded by Andreas.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

---

 send-pack.c |   30 ++++++++++++++----------------
 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

69310a34cb6dcca32b08cf3ea9e91ab19354a874

diff --git a/send-pack.c b/send-pack.c
index 5bc2f01..0d41f9a 100644
--- a/send-pack.c
+++ b/send-pack.c
@@ -231,23 +231,21 @@ static int send_pack(int in, int out, in
 		if (!force_update &&
 		    !is_zero_sha1(ref->old_sha1) &&
 		    !ref->force) {
-			if (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1)) {
-				error("remote '%s' object %s does not "
-				      "exist on local",
-				      ref->name, sha1_to_hex(ref->old_sha1));
-				ret = -2;
-				continue;
-			}
-
-			/* We assume that local is fsck-clean.  Otherwise
-			 * you _could_ have an old tag which points at
-			 * something you do not have, which may or may not
-			 * be a commit.
-			 */
-			if (!ref_newer(ref->peer_ref->new_sha1,
+			if (!has_sha1_file(ref->old_sha1) ||
+			    !ref_newer(ref->peer_ref->new_sha1,
 				       ref->old_sha1)) {
-				error("remote ref '%s' is not a strict "
-				      "subset of local ref '%s'.", ref->name,
+				/* We do not have the remote ref, or
+				 * we know that the remote ref is not
+				 * an ancestor of what we are trying to
+				 * push.  Either way this can be losing
+				 * commits at the remote end and likely
+				 * we were not up to date to begin with.
+				 */
+				error("remote '%s' is not a strict "
+				      "subset of local ref '%s'. "
+				      "maybe you are not up-to-date and "
+				      "need to pull first?",
+				      ref->name,
 				      ref->peer_ref->name);
 				ret = -2;
 				continue;

-- 
1.0.GIT