Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkout --orphan: respect -l option always

From: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>
Date: May 26, 2010, 15:13 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKAkwHYj6OvfEJM1YE8w2TZL2oeMBrj28V3CwX@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimT3sI3yuM8RZai-eWDk8Z5Rmc28RLGOx_i-RXa@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> 2010/5/26 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>>
>> Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@gmail.com> writes:
>> > @@ -684,8 +709,8 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> >       if (opts.new_orphan_branch) {
>> >               if (opts.new_branch)
>> >                       die("--orphan and -b are mutually exclusive");
>> > -             if (opts.track > 0 || opts.new_branch_log)
>> > -                     die("--orphan cannot be used with -t or -l");
>> > +             if (opts.track > 0)
>> > +                     die("--orphan should not be used with -t");
>>
>> Why s/cannot/should not/?  Just being curious.
>
> I have typed that text, not changed the original so this is not a fix
> to your text.  Anyway for me "should not" is more polite, like "you
> should not yell" meaning you really can not do it.  Or "you should not
> disrespect the captain".

I don't think it makes sense to try and be polite when we're actually refusing... "should not" implies that it possible but not recommended. And in this case it's impossible, because we die()...

-- 
Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund