Hi,
Thanks for the review !
(sorry if you received this twice)
Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>> + 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
For now we will keep name_bad and name_good as variables.
About the patch series shouldn't I squash the commit 2) and 3) into one?
--
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
