Re: [PATCH] push: error out when the "upstream" semantics does not make sense

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Maybe something like

		die(_(
"You are pushing to remote '%s', which is not the upstream of your\n"
"current branch '%s', without specifying a refspec.\n"),
		    remote->name, branch->name);

would be harder to misunderstand.

Perhaps.  Do we need to rephrase it without using the word 'refspec'
(e.g. "without telling me what to push"), or there is no point avoiding
jargon because other jargons (i.e. 'remote' and 'upstream') already appear
in the sentence?

"without telling me what to push" sounds good.