Update out-of-sync error message in ensure

[ibrasho]

What does this do / why do we need it?

Update out of sync error message from:

Gopkg.toml and Gopkg.lock are out of sync. Run a plain dep ensure to resync them before attempting to -add

to:

Gopkg.lock is out of sync with either Gopkg.toml or the project code. Run a plain dep ensure to resync them before attempting to -add

for both add and update.

Do you need help or clarification on anything?

Any better suggestions?

Which issue(s) does this PR fix?

fixes #1104

[carolynvs]

"plain ensure" is a bite vague, especially to anyone who isn't a native English speaker. Perhaps we could just tell them exactly which command to run?

Gopkg.lock is out of sync with either Gopkg.toml or the project code. First run "dep ensure" to resync them first, and then run "dep ensure -add ..."

[sdboyer]

agreed with @carolynvs. also, s/the project code/your project's imports/ - equally succinct, but more specific.

[sdboyer]

oh, also, drop the "either" - it's one or the other, or both.

[ibrasho]

Does this work?

Gopkg.lock is out of sync with Gopkg.toml or the project's imports. Run "dep ensure" to resync them first before running "dep ensure -add"

[carolynvs]

I like it! 👍

[akutz]

Hi @carolynvs and @ibrasho,

I personally would like the ability to run dep ensure -update even if things are out of sync. It would apply in cases when I update the toml file directly to update a specific dependency version and simply want to do dep ensure update -that/dep/. Maybe I want the toml constraint to reflect the actual version and not just the allowed version vis a vi the constraint.

[sdboyer]

I personally would like the ability to run dep ensure -update even if things are out of sync. It would apply in cases when I update the toml file directly to update a specific dependency version and simply want to do dep ensure update -that/dep/. Maybe I want the toml constraint to reflect the actual version and not just the allowed version vis a vi the constraint.

jumping in to note that i discussed this with @akutz the other day on the phone, and decided that i was probably being a bit too strict about not allowing users to do this. so i'm cool with relaxing that requirement - though it's still probably worth having a warning.