From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 16:42:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] bisect: output state before we are ready to compute bisection Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Taylor Blau writes: >> + if (!bs.nr_good && !bs.nr_bad) >> + printf(_("status: waiting for both good and bad commits\n")); >> + else if (bs.nr_good) >> + printf(Q_("status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commit known\n", >> + "status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commits known\n", >> + bs.nr_good), bs.nr_good); >> + else >> + printf(_("status: waiting for good commit(s), bad commit known\n")); >> +} > > Could or should these printf()'s be advise() calls instead? Given that existing bisect_next_all() mesasge to give estimates come to the standard output, I do not think so. /* * TRANSLATORS: the last %s will be replaced with "(roughly %d * steps)" translation. */ printf(Q_("Bisecting: %d revision left to test after this %s\n", "Bisecting: %d revisions left to test after this %s\n", nr), nr, steps_msg); I view these new messages as merely correcting the gap we used to have. We should have been giving feedback to the end-user when they did something, but instead we were giving feedback only when we did something, which resulted in the original "Huh?" that motivated this series. I actually wonder if we should do s/status:/Bisecting:/ to make the messages even more uniform, but if we were to go in that direction in the longer term, we'd probably be downcasing "Bisecting" to match our error/warning/info messages. Thanks.