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

Hi Junio,

Just a small fix...

2010/5/26 Erik Faye-Lund [off-list ref]:

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Erick Mattos [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

2010/5/26 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]

quoted

Erick Mattos [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

@@ -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