From: Chris Down Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 21:22:52 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] bisect: status improvements when bisect is not fully fleshed out Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: >Chris Down writes: > >> Thanks Junio and Taylor for reviewing. I have the following action >> items for v3: >> >> # [1/3] bisect: lowercase "Bisect:" to "bisect:" prior to wider use >> >> - New patch > >My preference actually were to leave this change out of the topic. >That is, instead of using "status:" in newer messages, have them use >the same "Bisecting:", so that all the "where we are in the bisect >session?" messages from the command use that same prefix. Sure, that also works. >I also wonder if the existing "Bisecting:" messages should also be >sent as comment to the log file, using the same bisect_log_printf() >helper (with the v2 patches, they are still using printf() and sent >only to the standard output). > >But this, just like "status:" -> "Bisecting:" -> "bisecting:" you >reacted to, is just "I wonder...", and is not a suggestion to make >changes as part of this series. Something to think about for a >possible follow-up after we complete this topic. > >But I do not mind if you want to go the extra mile to do all of the >above as part of the series. It would make the series to require >more reviews, which is why I generally recommend against extending >the scope of the (initial) topic too much and instead leave as much >additional changes to follow-up series after the initial series is >done. Sounds good then, I'll send another one after this goes in :-) Thanks!