Re: [PATCHv7 1/4] wt-status.*: better advices for git status added

[konglu@minatec.inpg.fr]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :

>> @@ -728,6 +729,167 @@ static void wt_status_print_tracking(struct  
>> wt_status *s)
>> ...
>> +static void show_am_in_progress(struct wt_status *s,
>> +				struct wt_status_state *state,
>> +				const char *color)
>> +{
>> +	status_printf_ln(s, color,
>> +		_("You are in the middle of an am session."));
>> +	if (state->am_empty_patch)
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, color,
>> +			_("The current patch is empty."));
>> +	if (advice_status_hints) {
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, color,
>> +			_("  (use \"git am --abort\" to restore the original branch)"));
>> +		status_printf_ln(s, color,
>> +			_("  (use \"git am --skip\" to skip this patch)"));
>> +		if (!state->am_empty_patch)
>> +			status_printf_ln(s, color,
>> +				_("  (when you have fixed this problem run \"git am --resolved\")"));
>> +	}
>> +	wt_status_print_trailer(s);
>> +}
>
> Perhaps s/fixed this problem/resolved conflicts/ or a similar
> rephrasing is a good idea.
>
> Conflicts from mergy operations are perfectly normal parts of a
> regular workday, and it is not a "problem" that needs to be "fixed".
> Both words scare the user by implying something is broken (or worse,
> "git broke something") in the contents of user's repository.
>
> There are existing messages that use the verb "fix" on "conflicts",
> only because it is shorter than "resolve", but this one that calls a
> conflict a "problem" goes too far in the wrong direction.

I agree. Still, experienced users probably have their advice.statushints
disabled and won't have any problems resolving a conflict. However, for
"beginners" that need the advices, resolving a conflict may not seem
as trivial as it is. And even though the word "problem" may scare them,
it will attract their attention.