Hi,
On 2015-05-19 02:12, Stefan Beller wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Paul Tan [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Tweak the error messages printed by die_no_merge_candidates() to take
into account that we may be "rebasing against" rather than "merging
with".
Signed-off-by: Paul Tan <redacted>
---
builtin/pull.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/pull.c b/builtin/pull.c
index c8d673d..15b65a0 100644
--- a/builtin/pull.c
+++ b/builtin/pull.c
@@ -474,10 +474,12 @@ static void NORETURN die_no_merge_candidates(const char *repo, const char **refs
const char *remote = curr_branch ? curr_branch->remote_name : NULL;
if (*refspecs) {
- fprintf(stderr,
- _("There are no candidates for merging among the refs that you just fetched.\n"
- "Generally this means that you provided a wildcard refspec which had no\n"
- "matches on the remote end.\n"));
+ if (opt_rebase)
+ fputs(_("There is no candidate for rebasing against among the refs that you just fetched."), stderr);
Is there a reason you switch to fputs, instead of fprintf?
$grep -I -r fputs|wc -l
123
$ grep -I -r fprintf|wc -l
689
fputs seems to be used already, though I never came across these parts
of the code
myself, so I wondered if we had fputs in the code base already.
My guess was that the new-line I expected and did not see in the `fputs()` call was the reason. But according to http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fputs.html:
The puts() function appends a <newline> while fputs() does not.
This comment concludes my review on this round of this patch series. It required quite some time to review, so it must have taken quite a bit more to actually write it: impressive work!
Ciao,
Dscho