Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] branch: deprecate --set-upstream and show help if we detect possible mistaken use

Carlos Martín Nieto [off-list ref] writes:

The 'track' in the message is still not great, but it does fit with
the one above. Maybe if we make it say "If youw wanted [...] track the
remote-tracking branch 'origin/master'" it would be clearer?

The verb "track" in the phrase "remote-tracking branch" means "keep
track of the branch at the remote, by storing a copy of the last
observed state of it".  In the same sentence, the verb "track"
elsewhere is used to describe what the branch B whose upstream is
set to B@{upstream} does against B@{upstream}, but that is not
"keeping a copy"---it is doing an entirely different thing.

If we say that the branch B whose upstream is set to B@{upstream} is
"building on top of B@{upstream}", "integrating with B@{upstream}",
"forked from B@{upstream}", etc., without using the verb "track"
that already means something else (i.e. keeps track of the copy of
last observed state), it would reduce the confusion, but I do not
think it would clarify anything if the verb "track" is used for
that.

As usual, because I am not the best source of phrasing, others may
find a better verb than "builds", "forks", or "integrates", though.

I've simplified and tightened the logic. Now it will only show the
undo message if the branch didn't exist locally and there is a
remote-tracking branch of the same name.

The updated and simplified logic reads quite straight-forward, and
looks good.  It is likely that the message will be reworded and also
localized in the future, so it would make sense to use test_i18ncmp
from the day one, though.

Thanks.  Will queue.