On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>wrote:
> Stefan Küng wrote:
> > On 04.06.2013 17:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> >> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> Your suggestion is a better message, I agree.
> >> The present error code and error message exactly duplicate one that
> >> is already used in 'reintegrate'. As this is in the library, the
> >> message is perhaps less important than the error code. We can tweak
> >> the message, but perhaps we should also make it possible for the
> >> caller to distinguish this case, by using a different error code such
> >> as 'SVN_ERR_CLIENT_UNRELATED_RESOURCES' (which is already for cases
> >> such as source and target being in different repositories), or even a
> >> new one.
> >> Stefan K or other GUI people, do you have an opinion on this?
> > Using 'SVN_ERR_CLIENT_UNRELATED_RESOURCES' is fine with me.
> > Thanks btw for fixing this.
> Can you clarify? Do you want me to change it to
> 'SVN_ERR_CLIENT_UNRELATED_RESOURCES' and propose that change for back-port
> to 1.8.x? It's currently already approved for backport with error code
I'm not checking for a specific error code (yet) so keeping
SVN_ERR_CLIENT_NOT_READY_TO_MERGE is fine. But I think that
'SVN_ERR_CLIENT_UNRELATED_RESOURCES' would be better for the future since
it indicates better why the merge failed.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2013-06-05 08:19:36 CEST