Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> writes:
> +static int require_clean_work_tree(const char *action, const char *hint,
> + int gently)
> {
> struct lock_file *lock_file = xcalloc(1, sizeof(*lock_file));
> - int do_die = 0;
> + int err = 0;
>
> hold_locked_index(lock_file, 0);
> refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
> @@ -376,20 +377,26 @@ static void die_on_unclean_work_tree(void)
> rollback_lock_file(lock_file);
>
> if (has_unstaged_changes()) {
> - error(_("Cannot pull with rebase: You have unstaged changes."));
> - do_die = 1;
> + error(_("Cannot %s: You have unstaged changes."), action);
> ...
> if (!autostash)
> - die_on_unclean_work_tree();
> + require_clean_work_tree("pull with rebase",
> + "Please commit or stash them.", 0);
>
> if (get_rebase_fork_point(rebase_fork_point, repo, *refspecs))
> hashclr(rebase_fork_point);
Splicing an English/C phrase 'pull with rebase' into a
_("localizable %s string") makes the life of i18n team hard.
Can we do this differently?
If you are eventually going to expose this function as public API, I
think the right approach would be to enumerate the possible error
conditions this function can diagnose and return them to the caller,
i.e.
#define WT_STATUS_DIRTY_WORKTREE 01
#define WT_STATUS_DIRTY_INDEX 02
static int require_clean_work_tree(void)
{
int status = 0;
...
if (has_unstaged_changes())
status |= WT_STATUS_DIRTY_WORKTREE;
if (has_uncommitted_changes())
status |= WT_STATUS_DIRTY_INDEX;
return status;
}
Then die_on_unclean_work_tree() can be made as a thin-wrapper that
calls it and shows the pull-specific error message.
