Marios Titas <red...@gmx.com> writes:
> - && !(ident_config_given & IDENT_NAME_GIVEN))
> - die("user.useConfigOnly set but no name given");
> + && !(ident_config_given & IDENT_NAME_GIVEN)) {
> + fputs(env_hint, stderr);
> + die("no name was given and auto-detection is
> disabled
Hmph. I do not think that this is making the message "more
informative".
When a user hits this error, the old message allowed the user to
easily see how to toggle the "disable auto-detection" bit off to let
the code continue by telling the name of the configuration, but the
updated message hides that name, making it harder for the user to
disable the disabling of auto-detection.
I can buy the argument that this change helps the user by making the
message "less" informative, though. By discouraging the users from
toggling the user.useConfigOnly bit off, it indirectly makes the
other option to work around this error condition, i.e. giving a name
more explicitly, more appetizing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
