From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E5E1F66E for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 21:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726729AbgHSVZC (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:25:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:58240 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726617AbgHSVZB (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:25:01 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F66F73B4E; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:25:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=EbJWz4xtzrEbXIapS6vJPDXsEIk=; b=IN/SsZ or1GeWkFBDirVdbcrRCcGVGmqQohO46kol6g/RttX9gNc0C3HpZcCFECJDoxzSCK 8+QXlg6P1F1YnpEVqfa9silNr+z4OcxTsDoXbz7FK/ILxFamLhdukjDPT3t2AHBX ekz8WuqTQXdIQV0QrywDU+53nVBuumHJSXPgw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=kUTSQXLRdWoynJFnjHhfz8wBv5Qz7Lq+ erRaVDpWTXN3nF4szxwXRwamtswT/8ClYuNiNNWMMnFdR30guOs2jJEEOfOTNF/i 9sYubFdF6SfJdOZAWh1aQ1uI61gVh2IYxVeWqNpxSJc5Vq/cpB+N7Dmx9mluy+Y/ 8tDu0oHIeT8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622EA73B4C; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:25:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6EAE73B49; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:24:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Han-Wen Nienhuys Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] builtin/commit: suggest update-ref for pseudoref removal References: <2681638651debf267bbe7e45e41decca5852808b.1597850128.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:24:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <2681638651debf267bbe7e45e41decca5852808b.1597850128.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> (Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 19 Aug 2020 15:15:26 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6F26288E-E262-11EA-B590-2F5D23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Han-Wen Nienhuys via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Han-Wen Nienhuys > > When pseudorefs move to a different ref storage mechanism, pseudorefs no longer > can be removed with 'rm'. Instead, suggest a "update-ref -d" command, which will > work regardless of ref storage backend. > > Signed-off-by: Han-Wen Nienhuys > --- > builtin/commit.c | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) The spirit is good, but the execution of this patch hurts i18n by consolidating messages that have been deliberately split and duplicated to avoid sentence lego. Limiting the scope of the change to doing -please remove the file - %s +please remove %s with + git update-ref -d '%s' twice may be (unfortunately) more preferrable. As we'd be repeating the same pseudoref variable twice, introduction of an extra variable pseudoref may be a good idea. Or would it work better to use %1$s twice, e.g. status_printf_ln(... _(... "... please remove %1$s with\n" " git update-ref -d '%1$s'\n" "and try again.\n"), pseudoref); I dunno.