Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:

> Sadly, I do not think so. It is just different, not better. Maybe less
> redundant... See for yourself:

Yup, I noticed and was referring to this "less redundant" as an
improvement, actually.

> The real fix would indeed be (as mentioned by Brandon elsewhere) to unify
> the code paths between the cached and the non-cached config machinery, so
> as to provide the exact same error message in this case.

Yeah, the unifying of the messages would be a good addition in the
mid term but I tend to agree that it can be done after this series
lands.

Thanks for clarification.

Reply via email to