From: Bagas Sanjaya Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 08:16:44 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] bisect--helper: use BISECT_TERMS in 'bisect skip' command Message-ID: <473a11db-cbb5-58b9-b05d-cab2072d5d2f@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 25/04/21 07.18, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > This patch was created directly on top of commit e4c7b33747 and tested > with the test from Bagas Sanjaya [1] (ie the second version of the > stand-alone test file t6031-*.sh, rather than the newer patch that > adds the test to t6030-*.sh). I applied this patch to the current > master branch (@311531c9de55) and it also passed the test in [1]. I have just sent v2 of t6030 version of my test [1]. Please test this patch against that v2 test. And if the test passes (breakage vanished), please update the test by do instructions in the FIXME comment lines of [1]. > @@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > break; > case BISECT_SKIP: > set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good"); > + get_terms(&terms); I'm not fluent in C, but I read these lines above as "ok, we set terms from &terms, bad and good as fallback in case the reference is empty; then we get these terms from the reference". Wouldn't it makes sense if we can say "get the terms from &terms" first, then "set the terms from the reference, if empty use bad and good as fallback"? [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210425080508.154159-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com/ -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara