Re: [PATCH v2] bisect: improve output when bad commit is found

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 13, 2015, 01:13 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqoalpcm9f.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150513005432.GF31257@tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com>

Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde@tbsaunde.org> writes:

Show 28 quoted lines

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:24:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde@tbsaunde.org> writes:
>> 
>> > When the first bad commit has been found git bisect prints something
>> > like this:
>> >
>> > 	<40 char sha1> is the first bad commit
>> > 	Commit <40 char sha1>
>> > 	...
>> >
>> > 	:100644 100644 10f5e57... a46cfeb... M  bisect.c
>> > 	:100755 100755 ae3fec2... 65a19fa... M  git-bisect.sh
>> >
>> > The raw diff output is not really useful, and its kind of silly to print
>> > the sha1 twice.  Instead lets print something like this:
>> >
>> > 	The first bad commit is
>> > 	Commit <sha1>
>> > 	...
>> 
>> According to +CCouder, this change will break existing people's use
>> cases.
>> 
>> See $gmane/268881
>
> Well, technically he just said it might be that people are parsing the
> output and could be broken, but if you'd rather not take that risk then
> I guess we just have to leave things the way they are.

FWIW.

 - I personally do not agree that those who scripted around "git
   bisect" (as opposed to those who wrote scripts to be driven by
   the "bisect run" interface) are worth worrying about.  But I am
   not the whole of the Git world ;-)

 - I personally do not find two same 40-hex on two lines is silly at
   all.

 - I _do_ think diff-tree --raw output without recursive is silly.
   It is not useful for humans (it doesn't even give paths fully),
   and it is insufficient for scripts, which can grok more through
   information out of the 40-hex.

So perhaps if we keep

	<40 char sha1> is the first bad commit

and then replace the diff-tree output with "show -s", then the result would be good enough, I would say.