Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

On Sun, 2017-07-30 at 16:17 +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 09:10 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > We perhaps need to somehow make sure new users won't be led to the > > misunderstanding. Improving our documentation is a good first step. > > That's something I could help

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 09:10 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > > > > That's interesting. In that case, I'll go with the suggested statement, > > happily! > > It is not interesting at all. It actually is disturbing that you > had the notion

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 20:53 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Kaartic Sivaraam writes: >> >> > Though the message seems to be most fitting one, I'm a little reluctant >> > to use it as it "might" create a

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 20:53 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > > > Though the message seems to be most fitting one, I'm a little reluctant > > to use it as it "might" create a wrong picture on the minds of the user > > making them think this

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > Though the message seems to be most fitting one, I'm a little reluctant > to use it as it "might" create a wrong picture on the minds of the user > making them think this would be the case in other cases too, which we > know is not true.

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 13:09 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > > > For an initial guess: in the example > > > > git grep test -n > > > > ... > > 2. Focus on "argument" instead of "filename" so that the message > > could still apply: something

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

Jonathan Nieder writes: > For an initial guess: in the example > > git grep test -n > > ... > 2. Focus on "argument" instead of "filename" so that the message > could still apply: something like > > fatal: option '-n' must come before non-option arguments I

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

Hello Jonathan Nieder, Thanks for the reply! Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > > The error message shown when a flag is found when expecting a > > filename wasn't clear as it didn't communicate what was wrong > > using the 'suitable' words in *all* cases. > > > > Correct case, > > > > $ git

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

Hi, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > The error message shown when a flag is found when expecting a > filename wasn't clear as it didn't communicate what was wrong > using the 'suitable' words in *all* cases. > > Correct case, > > $ git rev-parse commit.c --flags > commit.c >

Re: [PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

I've added RFC to this patch's subject as I'm not sure if the new message is suitable. Suggestions for messages that are more suitable are welcome. It seems that the function "verify_filename" is invoked by plumbing commands like 'rev-parse', let me know if I've missed something about them. I

[PATCH/RFC] setup: update error message to be more meaningful

The error message shown when a flag is found when expecting a filename wasn't clear as it didn't communicate what was wrong using the 'suitable' words in *all* cases. Correct case, $ git rev-parse commit.c --flags commit.c --flags fatal: bad flag '--flags' used