Re: js/bisect-in-c (was: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2022, #09; Mon, 31))

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2673 bytes --]

Hi Taylor,

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:22:17PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >
> > > What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2022, #09; Mon, 31)
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > * js/bisect-in-c (2022-08-30) 17 commits
> > >  . bisect: no longer try to clean up left-over `.git/head-name` files
> > >  . bisect: remove Cogito-related code
> > >  . Turn `git bisect` into a full built-in
> > >  . bisect: move even the command-line parsing to `bisect--helper`
> > >  . bisect--helper: make `state` optional
> > >  . bisect--helper: calling `bisect_state()` without an argument is a bug
> > >  . bisect: avoid double-quoting when printing the failed command
> > >  . bisect run: fix the error message
> > >  . bisect: verify that a bogus option won't try to start a bisection
> > >  . bisect--helper: migrate to OPT_SUBCOMMAND()
> > >  . bisect--helper: make the order consistently `argc, argv`
> > >  . bisect--helper: make `terms` an explicit singleton
> > >  . bisect--helper: simplify exit code computation
> > >  . bisect--helper: really retire `--bisect-autostart`
> > >  . bisect--helper: really retire --bisect-next-check
> > >  . bisect--helper: retire the --no-log option
> > >  . Merge branch 'sg/parse-options-subcommand' into js/bisect-in-c
> > >
> > >  Final bits of "git bisect.sh" have been rewritten in C.
> > >
> > >  Needs review.
> > >  cf. <xmqqv8pr8903.fsf@gitster.g>
> > >  source: <pull.1132.v6.git.1661885419.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> >
> > I see this has been ejected out of "seen", presumably due to the
> > outstanding conflicts.
>
> If I recall correctly, I ejected this one due to its age and lack of
> attention. If you want to reroll it or if Johannes wants to take a look,
> I'd be appreciative.

My last information was that I sent an iteration that was designed to
address all outstanding concerns, including a rather major haul to put
this on top of the new `OPT_SUBCOMMAND` feature that wasn't even dreamed
of when I sent v1 of `bisect-in-c`, and then I only saw "Needs review."
for several weeks and nobody objecting but also in particular Ævar (who
raised concerns against this patch series several times over the last 10
months) not chiming in with a "go ahead".

So basically, I thought this was finally done and the next thing I hear is
that it is ejected. That's quite a frustrating experience, I must admit.
At least I am not a new contributor who would be very much deterred from
contributing any further by such an experience.

Ciao,
Dscho