{"thread":{"id":"39579","subject":"[PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms","startedAt":"2015-06-10T07:09:42Z","lastAt":"2015-06-10T07:09:42Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["Antoine Delaite"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":4},"messages":[{"id":"263434","messageId":"1975406107.331328.1433920182747.JavaMail.zimbra@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr","threadId":"39579","inReplyTo":"1183699596.323718.1433875699237.JavaMail.zimbra@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr","subject":"[PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms","fromName":"Antoine Delaite","fromEmail":"antoine.delaite@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr","sentAt":"2015-06-10T07:09:42Z","receivedAt":"2015-06-10T07:09:42Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"antoine.delaite@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12510393?v=4"},"body":"Hi, \n\nThanks for the review ! \n(sorry if you received this twice)\n\nChristian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote : \n\n>>> + name_bad = \"bad\"; \n>>> + name_good = \"good\"; \n>>> + } else { \n>>> + strbuf_getline(&str, fp, '\\n'); \n>>> + name_bad = strbuf_detach(&str, NULL); \n>>> + strbuf_getline(&str, fp, '\\n'); \n>>> + name_good = strbuf_detach(&str, NULL); \n>>> + } \n>> \n>> I would have kept just \n>> \n>> name_bad = \"bad\"; \n>> name_good = \"good\"; \n>> \n>> in this patch, and introduce BISECT_TERMS in a separate one. \n> \n>Yeah I agree that it is more logical to have first a patch that does \n>on bisect.c the same thing as patch 2 does on git-bisect.sh. \n> \n>For example the patch series could be for now: \n> \n>1) bisect: typo fix \n>2) bisect: replace hardcoded \"bad|good\" with variables \n>3) git-bisect: replace hardcoded \"bad|good\" with variables \n>4) bisect: simplify adding new terms \n>5) bisect: add old/new terms \n\nFor now we will keep name_bad and name_good as variables. \nAbout the patch series shouldn't I squash the commit 2) and 3) into one? \n"}]}