From: Miriam R. <mirucam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 09:43:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_run` shell function in C
Message-ID: <CAN7CjDBfHrH_BPfNpwyAn6LSeSu_o2C5v7rR-_SnpMf-=UUeow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD2PE0-8AH7-RH1Xv_cZ5s2bOfR3_KYEhBTdNqYc-Zs5-Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

El mié, 18 ago 2021 a las 10:33, Christian Couder
(<christian.couder@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:36 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Miriam,
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, Miriam R. wrote:
> >
> > > El mar, 17 ago 2021 a las 13:42, Johannes Schindelin
>
> > > > Also: I think at this stage, an equivalent to `cat
> > > > "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_RUN"` is missing.
> > >
> > > In the previous patch series (v3), I implemented the equivalent to the
> > > cat command but I understood reviewers wanted to print the output to the
> > > user, so I reverted my changes for this version.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210411095538.34129-4-mirucam@gmail.com/
> >
> > I am a bit confused: doesn't `bisect_state()` write to the `BISECT_RUN`
> > file? If so, I think we do need to show the contents by opening the file
> > and piping it to `stdout`.
> >
> > FWIW I read
> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAP8UFD3X24F3qgefHpi00PM-KUk+vcqxwy2Dbngbyj7ciavCVQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > to mean the same thing, although I have to admit that I am not 100%
> > certain.
>
> I agree that, after `bisect_state()` has written into the `BISECT_RUN`
> file, we should indeed be opening it and piping it to `stdout`. That's
> what I meant in the above message.

Sorry for the confusion, I was understanding that reviewers wanted a
different approach, one thing or the other, not both.
I will do both then.
Thank you for the clarification!
Best,
Miriam.