Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] unpack-trees: refuse to remove startup_info->original_cwd

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2021, 18:06 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BH8iE=78Ni0yNaotmvtQps1LnAXfg8X1veO44Q4cf6yMA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <211125.867dcwjyeu.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 2:57 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>
> On Thu, Nov 25 2021, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
>
> > +     /* ERROR_CWD_IN_THE_WAY */
> > +     "Refusing to remove '%s' since it is the current working directory.",
> > +
> >       /* ERROR_WOULD_LOSE_UNTRACKED_OVERWRITTEN */
> >       "Untracked working tree file '%s' would be overwritten by merge.",
> >
> > @@ -131,6 +134,9 @@ void setup_unpack_trees_porcelain(struct unpack_trees_options *opts,
> >       msgs[ERROR_NOT_UPTODATE_DIR] =
> >               _("Updating the following directories would lose untracked files in them:\n%s");
> >
> > +     msgs[ERROR_CWD_IN_THE_WAY] =
> > +             _("Refusing to remove the current working directory:\n%s");
> > +
>
> We end up capitalizing the first letter here, which isn't our usual
> style, but I see we do it for all of unpack_plumbing_errors already, and
> some related things like the error setup.c would emit.
>
> Still, perhaps it's better to not follow that convention for new
> messages?

If someone else wants to submit a patch afterwards to clean up all these error messages, that'd be fine, but I think being internally inconsistent is more jarring than not following the global rule. I'll leave it as is, and let someone else do the wider cleanup.