Hey all, In going through the code review comments regarding cdm, I've been looking at making the error messages from tagchk and branchchk more informative as far as what the user should do next.
In doing this, I notice that large parts of branchchk are either redundant, or mis-ordered. I have several reasons for thinking this, check my working. - If you have multiple active branches, you'll have multiple heads, so we'll yell at you about that. - If you had branches, and you merged them, you have merge turds, and we'll yell at you about that. That seems to suggest that the only effective part of the *branch* check there is the part about whether the current (and only) branch is named 'default'. Can the named branch check itself (the last part of cdm_branchchk) ever fire in a situation where something else hasn't already complained about the same thing? If not, is it better for us to not just use the existing warnings (multiple heads, or merge turds), rather than say all this about branches that if you do things right will go away anyway? -- Rich
