Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, 23 Nov 2008 at 16:13 -0000:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:16:24PM +0000, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:58:06AM +0100, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> > > I think it does. It tells people what they were trying to do, and what they
> > > need to do to fix it. If we merge into an update-conflicted working copy,
> > > and that merge creates more tree-conflicts... let's just leave it there.
> >
> > OK, let's leave it in, but can we change the output to this?
> >
> > + *desc = apr_psprintf(pool, _("local %s, incoming %s by %s"),
> > + reason, action, operation);
> > Anyway, we're making up the output based on gut-feeling, not human
> > interface research guidelines. So there's not much point in arguing.
> > Let's just try to find a form of output we're all more or less
> > happy with.
>
I think that it is hard (since there is a word on either side of it,
with no visual delimiters) to quickly parse out the 'action' phrase
(which is the interesting part (e.g., it is the only thing in the
message that the user didn't know before the operation started)) from
the *desc string.
I'd prefer the previous formats (either "local %s, incoming %s" or the
same with " (by %s)" appended) -- I found both of them easier to parse
(maybe because they had more punctuation around the replaceable parts).
Yellow.
Daniel
> I'm happy with the current output :)
>
> Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-23 18:38:28 CET