On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Matthieu Moy
<matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms
>
> s/add/addition/
>
> Antoine Delaite <antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>
>> +static const char *name_bad;
>> +static const char *name_good;
>
> Same remark as PATCH 2.
As for patch 2, I think "name_bad" and "name_good" are better than
"name_new" and "name_old".
[...]
>> + name_bad = "bad";
>> + name_good = "good";
>> + } else {
>> + strbuf_getline(&str, fp, '\n');
>> + name_bad = strbuf_detach(&str, NULL);
>> + strbuf_getline(&str, fp, '\n');
>> + name_good = strbuf_detach(&str, NULL);
>> + }
>
> I would have kept just
>
> name_bad = "bad";
> name_good = "good";
>
> in this patch, and introduce BISECT_TERMS in a separate one.
Yeah I agree that it is more logical to have first a patch that does
on bisect.c the same thing as patch 2 does on git-bisect.sh.
For example the patch series could be for now:
1) bisect: typo fix
2) bisect: replace hardcoded "bad|good" with variables
3) git-bisect: replace hardcoded "bad|good" with variables
4) bisect: simplify adding new terms
5) bisect: add old/new terms
--
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
