From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 04:09:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bisect--helper: use BISECT_TERMS in 'bisect skip' command
Message-ID: <ffd80d10-9939-d31c-324d-3e32c37d2eaf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD3hOqeF04Xdjn-o2FShuTPQ9ZUEVCWnhfzCqV6MtbvU4g@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/04/21 14.06, Christian Couder wrote:
> Thanks Bagas for your test! I will take a look at it soon.
> 
> My opinion is that it would be best if both patches (Ramsay's and
> Bagas') were in the same patch series or even perhaps in the same
> commit. If you prefer separate patches, maybe the first one could be
> Ramsay's, and the second one Bagas' where indeed the instructions to
> replace test_expect_failure with test_expect_success have been
> followed.
> 

OK. Review ping

> It might not be the best API for this (or the set_terms() and
> get_terms() function could perhaps have better names), but anyway the
> current situation is that set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good") is setting
> the current terms to "bad"/"good" which is the default, and then
> get_terms(&terms) is reading the terms stored in the BISECT_TERMS file
> and using that to set the current terms. Also if the BISECT_TERMS file
> doesn't exist, then get_terms(&terms) is doing nothing. So it seems to
> me that Ramsay's patch is doing the right thing.
> 
> If get_terms(&terms) was used before set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good"),
> then the current terms would always be "bad"/"good" even if the
> BISECT_TERMS file contains valid terms different from "bad"/"good".
> 

OK, thanks for the explanation.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara