Re: [PATCH] Create 'bisect_flags' parameter in find_bisection() in preparation of passing multiple options

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 15, 2018, 09:55 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD3uz0kQ7s6MyRG=hXg8tYbu7QbRNqMZPstrtmXBZ6eTCg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180415085841.1269-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> wrote:

> ---
>
> Notes:
>     Preperatory patch to enable either Tiago Botelho's or my patch, to do bisection on first parents / merge commits

It would be nice if you could move some part of the above note into the commit message (above the ---). For example:

"Make it possible to implement bisecting only on first parents or on merge commits by passing flags to find_bisection(), instead of just a find_all boolean".

While at it maybe the subject line of the commit message could start with "bisect: create 'bisect_flags' parameter ..." so that we can quickly tell which area of the code it is about.

Show 15 quoted lines

>  bisect.c           | 21 ++++++++++++---------
>  bisect.h           |  5 +++--
>  builtin/rev-list.c |  6 +++---
>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/bisect.c b/bisect.c
> index a579b50884..d85550fd89 100644
> --- a/bisect.c
> +++ b/bisect.c
> @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static struct commit_list *best_bisection_sorted(struct commit_list *list, int n
>   */
>  static struct commit_list *do_find_bisection(struct commit_list *list,
>                                              int nr, int *weights,
> -                                            int find_all)
> +                                            int bisect_flags)

I think it's better to use "unsigned int" rather than just "int" for flags.

>  {
>         int n, counted;
>         struct commit_list *p;

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ extern struct commit_list *filter_skipped(struct commit_list *list,
>
>  #define BISECT_SHOW_ALL                (1<<0)
>  #define REV_LIST_QUIET         (1<<1)
> +#define BISECT_FIND_ALL                (1<<2)

Is BISECT_FIND_ALL really related to the other flags, or is this mixing rev list flags with bisect flags?

Thanks for working on this, Christian.