Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] merge-recursive: use "up-to-date" instead of "uptodate" in error message for consistency

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 10, 2010, 00:39 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwrt4goga.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <f5c54a4e27321b4ffb0f1f8542530281ef7841eb.1278707023.git.nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>

Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr>
> ---
>  merge-recursive.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index 856e98c..fb6aa4a 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ int merge_trees(struct merge_options *o,
>  	}
>  
>  	if (sha_eq(common->object.sha1, merge->object.sha1)) {
> -		output(o, 0, "Already uptodate!");
> +		output(o, 0, "Already up-to-date!");
>  		*result = head;
>  		return 1;
>  	}

Sorry, but the pros-and-cons is not good enough for me to support this change. It will break users who have been parsing output with scripts.

We do strongly warn people against relying on Porcelain output, but that does not mean we are free to change them without having a good reason or two. The new spelling won't help the next reader who will find the message confusing the same way you did a few days ago.

IOW, if we are touching this line anyway, I'd like to make sure we made an effort to make it less confusing, not just spelled correctly, while we still have our memory of confusion fresh ;-)