From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2022 07:03:53 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/16] bisect run: fix the error message Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <409492ad830828f2b5f341706ad9ad1c64f66d6e.1661604264.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Johannes Schindelin > > In d1bbbe45df8 (bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_run` shell function > in C, 2021-09-13), we ported the `bisect run` subcommand to C, including > the part that prints out an error message when the implicit `git bisect > bad` or `git bisect good` failed. > > However, the error message was supposed to print out whether the state > was "good" or "bad", but used a bogus (because non-populated) `args` > variable for it. > > Helped-by: Elijah Newren > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin > --- > builtin/bisect--helper.c | 2 +- > t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 10 ++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > index d797cd1cef8..a00167f1373 100644 > --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c > +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c > @@ -1430,7 +1430,7 @@ static int cmd_bisect_run(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > printf(_("bisect found first bad commit")); > res = BISECT_OK; > } else if (res) { > - error(_("bisect run failed: 'git bisect--helper --bisect-state" > + error(_("bisect run failed: 'git bisect" > " %s' exited with error code %d"), new_state, res); > } else { > continue; The change to retire "bisect--helper" from the end-user facing error message makes tons of sense, but I am not quite sure if the proposed log message describes the change correctly. Or is this a fallout of some "rebase -i" gotcha that a log message meant for one commit was applied to a different commit, or something?