Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2023-07-06 20:25:45
Alex Henrie [off-list ref] writes:
Also, don't imply that `git pull` is only for merging. Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]
I appreciate, but do not need, the credit; in any way, I didn't co-author this one.
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <redacted> --- remote.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c index a81f2e2f17..1fe86f8b23 100644 --- a/remote.c +++ b/remote.c@@ -2323,7 +2323,10 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb, base, ours, theirs); if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS)) strbuf_addstr(sb, - _(" (use \"git pull\" to merge the remote branch into yours)\n")); + _(" (To reconcile your local changes with the work at the remote, you can\n" + " use 'git pull' and then 'git push'. To discard the work at the remote\n" + " and replace it with what you did (alone), you can use\n" + " 'git push --force'.)\n")); }
Since wt-status.c:wt_longstatus_print_tracking() calls this function, I would expect that this change would manifest as test breakage in "git status" (or "git commit" whose commit log edit buffer is examined) tests. Are we lacking test coverage? Thanks.