On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 09:44:50AM +0800, Edmund Wong wrote:
> > && status->prop_status != svn_wc_status_normal))
> > return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_CLIENT_MODIFIED, NULL,
> > - _("'%s' has local modifications"),
> > + _("'%s' has local modifications, revert them "
> > + "first"),
> > svn_path_local_style(path, pool));
>
> This part, I was wondering if it would be even more clearer if we made
> the user aware that they can revert or commit the changes?
Yes it would, good point.
So what about the diff below? Running 'make check' on it now.
Stefan
Index: subversion/svn/util.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/svn/util.c (revision 36961)
+++ subversion/svn/util.c (working copy)
@@ -886,7 +886,8 @@ svn_cl__may_need_force(svn_error_t *err)
/* Should this svn_error_compose a new error number? Probably not,
the error hasn't changed. */
err = svn_error_quick_wrap
- (err, _("Use --force to override this restriction") );
+ (err, _("Use --force to override this restriction (local modifications "
+ "may be lost)"));
}
return err;
Index: subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c (revision 36961)
+++ subversion/libsvn_client/delete.c (working copy)
@@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ find_undeletables(void *baton,
(status->prop_status != svn_wc_status_none
&& status->prop_status != svn_wc_status_normal))
return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_CLIENT_MODIFIED, NULL,
- _("'%s' has local modifications"),
+ _("'%s' has local modifications, commit or revert "
+ "them first"),
svn_path_local_style(path, pool));
return SVN_NO_ERROR;
Received on 2009-04-03 14:58:43 CEST