From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: [PATCH] send-pack: reword non-fast-forward error message. Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:13:46 +0100 Message-ID: <43ABE9FA.4010604@op5.se> References: <7vd5jqvsn1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <43AA79EB.6040800@op5.se> <7vek45lyor.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vu0d0j24z.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 23 13:13:57 2005 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eplo0-0006MP-BT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:13:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030509AbVLWMNs (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:13:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030511AbVLWMNs (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:13:48 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:24204 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030509AbVLWMNr (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:13:47 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.19] (1-2-9-7a.gkp.gbg.bostream.se [82.182.116.44]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56D96BD22 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:13:46 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: git@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <7vu0d0j24z.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > >>Andreas Ericsson writes: >> >> >>>Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >>>>In a sense, both are "pull first?" situation, and it probably is >>>>more confusing to give different messages to the user in these >>>>two cases. From the end-user point of view they are the same >>>>"remote is not strict subset.". >>> >>>In non-git'ish, does this mean "you're not up to date, so pull before >>>pushing" ? If so, why not say so? I'm sure it could prevent a fair few >>>problems for users (not least those new to scm's). > > > That is reasonable. How about this? > Me likes. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231