Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-10 Thread Matthieu Moy
Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr writes: - - fprintf(stderr, The merge base %s is bad.\n - This means the bug has been fixed - between %s and [%s].\n, - bad_hex, bad_hex, good_hex); - + if (!strcmp(name_bad, bad)) { + fprintf(stderr, The merge base %s is

[PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-10 Thread Antoine Delaite
Hi, Thanks for the review, (sorry if you received this twice) Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote: +static const char *name_bad; +static const char *name_good; Same remark as PATCH 2. After the discussion you had with Christian I think we will keep name_bad/good for now.

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-09 Thread Christian Couder
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr wrote: Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr writes: --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC= _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]'

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-09 Thread Matthieu Moy
Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr writes: --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC= _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]' _x40=$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40 +NAME_BAD=bad +NAME_GOOD=good I would have written

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-09 Thread Junio C Hamano
Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr writes: Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr writes: --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC= _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]' _x40=$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-09 Thread Matthieu Moy
Christian Couder christian.cou...@gmail.com writes: old/new is not more generic than good/bad. I disagree with this. In any case, we're looking for a pair of commits where one is a direct parent of the other. So in the end, there's always the old behavior and the new behavior in the end. In

Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr writes: + *,$NAME_BAD) + die $(gettext 'git bisect $NAME_BAD' can take only one argument.) ;; H, doesn't this break i18n the big way? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a

[PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded bad|good by variables

2015-06-08 Thread Antoine Delaite
To add new tags like old/new and have keywords less confusing, the first step is to avoid hardcoding the keywords. The default mode is still bad/good. Signed-off-by: Antoine Delaite antoine.dela...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr Signed-off-by: Louis Stuber stub...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr Signed-off-by: