Antoine Delaite <antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> -USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|new|old|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]'
> +USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|new|old|terms|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]'
I think this patch makes the whole series go in the right direction.
I wonder if you can skip the "we only support new/old if you are not
doing bog-standard bad/good" step and start from this "bisect terms"
one, though.
Then you do not even have to treat new/old any specially, and do not
even have to list them in the above list.
> @@ -79,9 +81,16 @@ bisect_start() {
> orig_args=$(git rev-parse --sq-quote "$@")
> bad_seen=0
> eval=''
> - # start_bad_good is used to detect if we did a
> - # 'git bisect start bad_rev good_rev'
> - start_bad_good=0
> + # terms_defined is used to detect if we did a
> + # 'git bisect start bad_rev good_rev' or if the user
> + # defined his own terms with git bisect terms
> + terms_defined=0
I like this change very much; it removes the mysteriously misnamed
start-bad-good variable (because you do not really _care_ that
'start' was what implicitly decided that good/bad pair is the term
we use in this session; what you care is that the terms are already
known or not).
That is another reason why I think it would be a better organization
for the patch series to do without the intermediate "we now add new/old
as another hardcoded values on top of the traditional bad/good".
That is, I would think a reasonable progression of the series would
look more like these three steps:
- preliminary clean-up steps (e.g. "correct 'mistook'");
- use $name_new and $name_old throughout the code, giving them
'bad' and 'good' as hardcoded values; finally
- add 'bisect terms' support.
Thanks.
--
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
