On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:21:15AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > But I agree we could be more helpful in the messages. > > The "did you mean?" advice just blindly says "oh, you asked for X and > refs/remotes/ABC/X exists, so let's suggest ABC/X", without checking for > ambiguities. It should probably do this:
Here's a patch series to do that. > I also think the "warning: refname ... is ambiguous" message would > probably be a bit more helpful if it showed _which_ candidates it found > (and which one it chose!). This series doesn't do anything for this problem, which I think is a bit more involved. I'm not planning to work on it immediately, if somebody else wants to pick it up (and I see Duy already has a response :) ). [1/2]: help_unknown_ref(): duplicate collected refnames [2/2]: help_unknown_ref(): check for refname ambiguity help.c | 8 ++++---- t/t7600-merge.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -Peff
