From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BF31F54E for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 19:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="oI9bYAys"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241452AbiHQTZM (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:25:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46270 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241196AbiHQTZJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2022 15:25:09 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052FA5F55 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id a15so10698167qko.4 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=s/fLeppeRrNl0jBATLK1FUP5ZeILiHfVvWqbvH74h3o=; b=oI9bYAysv+Xy/531zTqdE+kERRJEa6eCgCgR8w/q6gbVqQe72W0Y3SJpbPH+gQl1yF qSPUhkUgAR7PGK7VJ+gS2iu8RZfWSiBFPPcuurzmsLSBp3RwSg2vdbVOR2rZzRiRvReA rkWNjoyInJK5MqybI2xi2fZYW9MwaXd+sLaMwzJqN/DV9W+I/ktRif/Bj8a4/ZPCNo5i Au9GCU5ql9gGgr6F2Ha4UzAj2jY+sXpji5qRvaqBp8v7td/wiqLCWlihvRq8IUAl1S5f 7//iX47nebLng/GKchyVkWECiyC2oCSk0LWe40/pbdUe1SfK4FPWAww/xyG/C6GNAhIB qNGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=s/fLeppeRrNl0jBATLK1FUP5ZeILiHfVvWqbvH74h3o=; b=KpGIJIDyOOB8/3Dzt45WlBAIl9IJQNJKbU9w4A/S5GoOb1juM5UOjTOqgHufv/C6gs kSazmgqRLDF7eXDTngFFxToZLQiGngOURCKhSHir22zQohKJ74o3b7PryBF/vfhNlqKq tcEcXoOfyJ6epTqMh6/W2Ikz44JSyXZ+B6f0QwiwX+P70R5uGgHNJG/jn7KyrrJRq4/I h+vhAcLxcnmv9OqlzTu3fee2ba+jNHOuQby/EBTHxzt+lu6ecafjJ4fgqzWreZz0qVuM GIcj6YG77MvVjkkt3rMA+KskbRQ3hY3ZRITXt0Q3Um5Adcio5SW9IfxK+y4pQfV5YHX1 BXow== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0BdTRxzd8DELq3VuiRm6uvgYrkzinybwx/fyax6x+DAhq88Hya RO7xpJ6jhDTDa/AM9Yga8rCdB/TXfAVol9oLszM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6KmVxUUdt09TNBU9zsPYgBWNt89L6Tu064+k1Eig1TlgaWbegt+y0M/5z1RO+SJxoZ2/sGgZYBMp6LNiuKntA= X-Received: by 2002:a37:638c:0:b0:6ba:fcfa:3690 with SMTP id x134-20020a37638c000000b006bafcfa3690mr14631446qkb.227.1660764308072; Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:24:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: js/bisect-in-c, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Aug 2022, #05; Mon, 15) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:57 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Elijah Newren writes: > > >> > Expecting a (hopefully final) reroll. > >> ... > > > > Could I vote for just merging it down, as-is? As far as I can tell, > > ... Further, such changes, while likely > > desirable for consistency among Git commands, would likely move us > > away from "faithful conversion from shell to C", and thus is likely > > better to be done as a separate step on top of the existing series > > anyway[4]. > > If this were a faithful conversion, yes, merging it right now can be > one good approach; add a faithful but not very C-like convesion > first and then make it "more like C code" later. > > I however got an impression from the review discussion that it > subtly changes behaviour (IIRC, one thing pointed out was that exit > codes are now different from the original---there may or may not be > others, but my impression was they were all minor like the "exit > code" one). > > My "hopefully final" comment was not about a big rearchitecting > change like use of parse-options API but about adjusting such minor > behaviour diversion so that we can say "This may not be very C-like, > and does not use much of our established API, but it is a fairly > faithful bug-to-bug compatible translation. Let's take it and make > it more like C incrementally". And of course, what was implied in > "hopefully final" was that such adjustments would be tiny, trivial > and can be done without much controversy. After all, I was aware > that the series was otherwise reviewed and received extensive > comments (sorry, I forgot that it was by you). > > Thanks. Ah, gotcha. My impression was that the exit codes did match what the previous shell code had done, but didn't match what other builtins usually return. Perhaps I misread those discussion comments. Thanks for the clarification.