From: Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:28:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] checkout --orphan: respect -l option always
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUpyH6nmTfB4XbjQqJHHJOZiea4hn61tIH2ulR@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKAkwHYj6OvfEJM1YE8w2TZL2oeMBrj28V3CwX@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Junio,

Just a small fix...

2010/5/26 Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com>:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Erick Mattos <erick.mattos@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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()...

If you agree, please do that 's/should not/cannot/' on pu.

Regards