From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Lehner Subject: Re: `git mv` has ambiguous error message for non-existing target Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: <50AA9F89.1050401@gmx.de> References: <50A53A80.4080203@gmx.de> <7vehju8h5j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <50A5E6D2.5060609@gmx.de> <7vpq3cja4y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 19 22:08:04 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TaYZU-00059t-1x for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:08:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751885Ab2KSVHp (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:07:45 -0500 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:52792 "HELO mailout-de.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750821Ab2KSVHo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:07:44 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2012 21:07:23 -0000 Received: from 188-194-118-2-dynip.superkabel.de (EHLO [192.168.1.110]) [188.194.118.2] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 19 Nov 2012 22:07:23 +0100 X-Authenticated: #36416844 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+wH0dcJgmwY6imAMqgY1dQJ8rUR5xzfY5Gc0ZXtJ fgrdlq9NCz6X0B User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 In-Reply-To: <7vpq3cja4y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sa 17 Nov 2012 20:35:09 CET, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Lehner writes: > >> But just because mv's error essage isnt very good, does that mean git >> mv's error message mustn't be better? > > Did I say the error message from 'mv' was not very good in the > message you are responding to (by the way, this is why you should > never top-post when you are responding to a message on this list)? > > I meant to say that the message from 'mv' is good enough, so is the > one given by 'git mv'. > > I wouldn't reject a patch that updates our message to something more > informative without looking at it, though. I apologize for top-posting -- I don't usually use mailing lists and am not aware of the usual netiquette. And yes, I did interpret a bit more into your reply than was there. I wouldn't call the 'mv' error message "good enough" in this case, but very well, opinions may very well differ. Unfortunately, I have no time to get into the git code and contribution guidelines, so I cannot submit a patch myself. I would appreciate if someone else who shares my sentiment and knows their way around the git source a bit could find the time to add this :) Regards, Patrick