Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms
- From
Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
- Date
- Jun 10, 2015, 15:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <vpqvbevr3eh.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqegljoayp.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: > >> Louis-Alexandre Stuber <stuberl@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes: >> >>>> That is very different from ENOENT, which is an expected error when >>>> you are not using a customized terms. >>> >>> But in the current state, we are going to create bisect_terms even if >>> the bisection is in bad/good mode. >> >> Which means that in normal cases, you'll either succeed to open it, or >> get ENOENT. We're talking about unexcepted cases (you don't have >> permission to read it because it's not your file, because you messed up >> with a chmod, or whatever reason). > > I think both I and you misunderstood what they wanted to do, which > is to write out good and bad into terms file even though these are > not customized, and then always read from terms file to learn what > words are used for good and bad.
Yes, indeed.
> But I do not think it is a good idea to penalize the normal case by > writing the terms file and reading them back from it when the user > is bisecting with good/bad in the first place, so....
No strong opinion on that, but creating one file doesn't cost much, and one advantage of writing it unconditionally is that it unifies bad/good and old/new more in the code. Just the creation of BISECT_TERMS becomes a special-case.
-- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/