From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:56:05 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next
Message-ID: <483EC405.6090400@freescale.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vlk1tpug5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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