patchAvoid warning when bisecting a merge

> ---
>
> This one should go on top of cc/bisect.
>
> /Gustaf
>
>  git-bisect.sh |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
> index 69a9a56..05d14b3 100755
> --- a/git-bisect.sh
> +++ b/git-bisect.sh
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ bisect_next() {
>  		"refs/bisect/skip-*" | tr '\012' ' ') &&
>
>  	# Maybe some merge bases must be tested first
> +	checkout_done=0
>  	check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad "$bad" "$good" "$skip" || exit
>  	test "$checkout_done" -eq "1" && checkout_done='' && return

> Le jeudi 4 septembre 2008, Gustaf Hendeby a écrit :
>> Trying to compare an empty string as a number results in an error,
>> hence make sure checkout_done is set before using it.
>
> This patch seems to work fine. 
>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustaf Hendeby <hendeby@isy.liu.se>
>
> Acked-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>

>> diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
>> index 69a9a56..05d14b3 100755
>> --- a/git-bisect.sh
>> +++ b/git-bisect.sh
>> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ bisect_next() {
>>  		"refs/bisect/skip-*" | tr '\012' ' ') &&
>>
>>  	# Maybe some merge bases must be tested first
>> +	checkout_done=0
>>  	check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad "$bad" "$good" "$skip" || exit
>>  	test "$checkout_done" -eq "1" && checkout_done='' && return

> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> 
>> Le jeudi 4 septembre 2008, Gustaf Hendeby a écrit :
>>> Trying to compare an empty string as a number results in an error,
>>> hence make sure checkout_done is set before using it.
>> This patch seems to work fine. 
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustaf Hendeby <hendeby@isy.liu.se>
>> Acked-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
> 
> Have you actually read the patch and thought about it before acking it?
> 
> Why does a variable that says "have we done checkout?" have three states?
> Certainly it is not like "yes, no, dunno", right?  checkout_done=0 which
> was added by Gustaf, checkout_done=1 is the state the test checks with
> (presumably set by check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad), and checkout_done=''
> which the code does before returning?
> 
>> PS: After thinking about it, I wonder if we should remove $checkout_done 
>> entirely and use the return value from "check_merge_bases" 
>> and "check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad" to know if a checkout was done.
> 
> Yup, that might make more sense. In the meantime, I suspect this makes
> more sense than introducing a new state "0".

> 
> diff --git c/git-bisect.sh w/git-bisect.sh
> index 69a9a56..73f01bb 100755
> --- c/git-bisect.sh
> +++ w/git-bisect.sh
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC=
>  . git-sh-setup
>  require_work_tree
>  
> +checkout_done=
>  _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]'
>  _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40"
>  
> @@ -418,7 +419,7 @@ check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad() {
>  	_side=$(git rev-list $_good ^$_bad)
>  	if test -n "$_side"; then
>  		check_merge_bases "$_bad" "$_good" "$_skip" || return
> -		test "$checkout_done" -eq "1" && return
> +		test -n "$checkout_done" && return
>  	fi
>  
>  	: > "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_ANCESTORS_OK"
> @@ -438,7 +439,7 @@ bisect_next() {
>  
>  	# Maybe some merge bases must be tested first
>  	check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad "$bad" "$good" "$skip" || exit
> -	test "$checkout_done" -eq "1" && checkout_done='' && return
> +	test -n "$checkout_done" && checkout_done='' && return
>  
>  	# Get bisection information
>  	BISECT_OPT=''
> 
> 

> On 09/05/2008 08:29 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> Yup, that might make more sense. In the meantime, I suspect this makes
>> more sense than introducing a new state "0".
>
> I can't argue with that.  Junio, your suggestion makes more sense.  I
> should have paid more attention to what I was doing.  Sorry about the noise.