Would "%s@%ld and %s@%ld must have a common ancestor" be easier to translate?
The term "ancestrally related" seems a bit complicated for translation :-P
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM, <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Mon Jun 3 22:12:41 2013
> New Revision: 1489203
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1489203
> Log:
> * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> (find_automatic_merge): Error instead of crashing if source branch is not
> related to target branch.
>
> Found by: steveking
>
> Modified:
> subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
>
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c?rev=1489203&r1=1489202&r2=1489203&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c (original)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c Mon Jun 3 22:12:41 2013
> @@ -12307,6 +12307,12 @@ find_automatic_merge(svn_client__pathrev
> SVN_ERR(svn_client__get_youngest_common_ancestor(
> &s_t->yca, s_t->source, &s_t->target->loc, s_t->source_ra_session,
> ctx, result_pool, result_pool));
> + if (! s_t->yca)
> + return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_CLIENT_NOT_READY_TO_MERGE, NULL,
> + _("'%s@%ld' must be ancestrally related to "
> + "'%s@%ld'"),
> + s_t->source->url, s_t->source->rev,
> + s_t->target->loc.url, s_t->target->loc.rev);
>
> /* Find the latest revision of A synced to B and the latest
> * revision of B synced to A.
>
>
Received on 2013-06-04 06:03:49 CEST