Re: [PATCH v7 00/13] Finish converting git bisect to C part 2

>
> Hi Dscho,
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:06 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Christian Couder wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:26 PM Johannes Schindelin
> > > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > > > Instead, those `eval` calls are required because the arguments are
> > > > provided in quoted form. For example, during the execution of t6030.68,
> > > > the `eval` would expand the call
> > > >
> > > >         eval "git bisect--helper --bisect-start $rev $tail"
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > >         git bisect--helper --bisect-start '--term-old' 'term2' '--term-new' 'term1'
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was also what I found (along with the bug I sent a patch for).
> >
> > I suspected that you had found that out, but I really wanted a record on
> > the Git mailing list about our findings.
> >
> > It might be a good idea to add a paragraph to the respective patches,
> > along these lines:
> >
> >         Note that the `eval` in the changed line of `git-bisect.sh` cannot be
> >         dropped: it is necessary because the `rev` and the `tail`
> >         variables may contain multiple, quoted arguments that need to be
> >         passed to `bisect--helper` (without the quotes, naturally).
>
> Yeah, sure. Hopefully Miriam will send this in the commit message of
> the right patch which is in the subset of the patch series she hasn't
> sent.

>
> > > > Therefore, the `eval` really needs to stay in place (also the other `eval`
> > > > I had originally suggested to remove, for the same reason).
> > > >
> > > > I would still recommend appending `|| exit`, even if it just so happens
> > > > that we will eventually abort when the `bisect--helper` command failed
> > > > anyway, because the next command will then fail, and abort. But it's
> > > > cleaner to abort already when this invocation failed rather than relying
> > > > on that side effect.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think it's a good solution.
> >
> > Excellent. I think we can actually move forward with the entire patch
> > series now, not just the first subset, right?
>
> Yeah, I think so too.