Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next
- From
Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com>
- Date
- May 29, 2008, 14:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <483EC405.6090400@freescale.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vlk1tpug5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes: > >> It seems not very friendly to just "return 1" when not bisecting. >> And before my last patch to use BISECT_START to check if we are bisecting, >> it would perhaps have been better to use 'test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES"'. > > The reason for this silence is because Santi wants to call potential > culprits in turn and stop when one responds "Yeah, I am the guilty one who > threw a monkey wrench into the user's workflow". For that to work, "No, > the user is not in the middle of any interaction with me" response needs > to be silent.
Hrm. Do both? Have the normal interactive user command be more verbose, but let the pseudo-scripted version supply an additional --status-only flag as it sequences through the status checks?
jdl