From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69D1202D7 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753218AbdCHMwU (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:52:20 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40403 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752095AbdCHMwS (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Mar 2017 07:52:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 21637 invoked by uid 109); 8 Mar 2017 05:45:35 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 05:45:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 19883 invoked by uid 111); 8 Mar 2017 05:45:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:45:43 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:45:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:45:33 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Horst Schirmeier , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] send-pack: improve unpack-status error messages Message-ID: <20170308054533.7wy52myrbpovyoet@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170307133437.qee2jtynbiwf6uzr@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170307133736.4lpn7mgme26dqs3m@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:56:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > When the remote tells us that the "unpack" step failed, we > > show an error message. However, unless you are familiar with > > the internals of send-pack and receive-pack, it was not > > clear that this represented an error on the remote side. > > Let's re-word to make that more obvious. > > > > Likewise, when we got an unexpected packet from the other > > end, we complained with a vague message but did not actually > > show the packet. Let's fix that. > > Both make sense. > > > And finally, neither message was marked for translation. The > > message from the remote probably won't be translated, but > > there's no reason we can't do better for the local half. > > Hmm, OK. I'll admit that I don't actually use the translations myself, being a native English speaker. So I am just guessing that somebody for whom English is a second language would rather see the first half in a more intelligible format. That at least tells them what the second half _is_, so they might be able to search for the error with more context. If my guess is wrong, though, I'm happy to retract that part or bump it out to a separate patch. -Peff