Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> writes:
> +static int bisect_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int
> argc)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (get_terms(terms)) {
> + fprintf(stderr, _("no terms defined\n"));
> + return -1;
> + }
> + if (argc == 0) {
> + printf(_("Your current terms are %s for the old state\nand "
> + "%s for the new state.\n"), terms->term_good.buf,
> + terms->term_bad.buf);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
> + if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-good"))
> + printf("%s\n", terms->term_good.buf);
> + else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-bad"))
> + printf("%s\n", terms->term_bad.buf);
> + else
> + printf(_("invalid argument %s for 'git bisect "
> + "terms'.\nSupported options are: "
> + "--term-good|--term-old and "
> + "--term-bad|--term-new."), argv[i]);
> + }
The original took only one and gave one answer (and errored out when
the user asked for more), but this one loops. I can see either way
is OK and do not think of a good reason to favor one over the other;
unless there is a strong reason why you need this extended behaviour
that allows users to ask multiple questions, I'd say we should keep
the original behaviour.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
