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.
