Re: [PATCH] Fix confusing wording

On 27.12.2017 22:44, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Ivan Pozdeev [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Not sure if I should add a CVE-2009-0037 reference as well.

Not in an end-user facing message like this one, I would say.

To me, as an end user, the current message had no meaning at all. It 
even sounds like I'm better off for having an old version 'cuz git tried 
to apply some limitation to the download, and couldn't.
If it had "see <CVE> for more details", I could quickly find out the 
message's real meaning. Currently, I have to `git blame' the source to 
do that -- certainly something that few users would resort to.

quoted

---

Sign off?

https://github.com/native-api/git/blob/master/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
wasn't clear that this is required (TortoiseGit doesn't add it by 
default). Do I need to remake the patch or something?

quoted

http.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/http.c b/http.c
index 215bebe..26b3386 100644
--- a/http.c
+++ b/http.c

@@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ static CURL *get_curl_handle(void)

get_curl_allowed_protocols(-1));
#else
warning("protocol restrictions not applied to curl redirects because\n"
- "your curl version is too old (>= 7.19.4)");
+ "your libcurl version is too old (< 7.19.4)");
#endif

Between 'curl' and 'libcurl', the latter certainly is more
technically correct.  I have a feeling that it would be better to
spell out ">=" as "requires at least" than replacing it with equally
cryptic "<" (it is OK to spell it out as "your libcurl version is
older than minimum required 7.19.4", too).

I don't see how "your version is too old (less that <version>)" is unclear.
Any wording with "required" would be incorrect because a newer version 
isn't really "required", git can work with an older one, too.

Thanks.

You're welcome :-)

-- 
Regards,
Ivan