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, <julianf...@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. > >
