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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0321F466 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727370AbgA3P0o (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:26:44 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com ([209.85.166.48]:38688 "EHLO mail-io1-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727186AbgA3P0n (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:26:43 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id s24so4448675iog.5 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 07:26:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hoPc0AIsLRiQBJ4+9F0u7OZxAg1G+QYq3fporFT1/38=; b=QqUzuF/Osj/J+pOCSUWuBLL8lO+u0CjxJjcAr8zzlc4OaxVmQbRn64ObepUq6/Dy++ fB+o32riNiteclArsHU0VGAaA2CkXEJlCWR1TVUg2VRmGBj2UAgfdeLybwZNlTkDVhiV qHpy3WLNQ79aaoDasRs9j89pJGBNWQEfwmKyNeHbrbboS6WwPqnhKl3+fOE0gVG55DX4 jPkA3eUvPT78jj3T4HK6MFVAzJatf46PjC8lh9D6UULpl2/i35GsKl8M6p7G7adttqPC YaAnl1sVYEph267OSnlsySFkpE1K6/8d9OEQZOu2XDWwA526kRBRenRKT83yw3dbz1CY I7cw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hoPc0AIsLRiQBJ4+9F0u7OZxAg1G+QYq3fporFT1/38=; b=FiXBS5t46RrI3xhd5rqtQUEhYl6zxVDCdfJDeEkZKBVCYwqD5lpPEIRvN+nsn6M2JJ HuHLKjSXz3A4nJJ1dvR4JycQTDvxQeJpLysDpP4l30CjG/5B0cO5XFvMl+vBlHSs4/8C 7V1iXuNdCSwNxS1JzbvcGEMxDRmlvHxZ4Ry5O0H4k4YM/xzpYAmhzEX/5Tq7NndK57X2 /3NUrcY2YyW6fi12c535OZeg5P9OINEuwNKwB8Q1cCtyQ3hTiwQ4ykq8EemaM+Xaxb7K T5zDnFWqpL8CIUSXVVAeHekhys8yalR8CQVY6A7GIdcKHYDcwl+ZKG+ntoJBBjJET6rq F1Ig== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVkTvR8QTAVNBUbZTgcRgN8fnG/uLFdnnEy+s1ZwXBq03AHFX5D K+3V6Fe3egN8U71UXXed4OblJbkEHHnbvQDxW7A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxlyVyB5PJlf5vPJ6/iQa8YV28ND2SCDhwBEbSeCdWfYCO5Ns4LtYbNg5RCBOhVshpr8AgRvhW919KVwYgRdE8= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6311:: with SMTP id p17mr4283939iog.127.1580398003122; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 07:26:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200128144026.53128-1-mirucam@gmail.com> <20200128144026.53128-10-mirucam@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Miriam R." Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:26:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] bisect: libify `check_good_are_ancestors_of_bad` and its dependents To: Johannes Schindelin , git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, El jue., 30 ene. 2020 a las 16:01, Johannes Schindelin () escribi=C3=B3: > > Hi Miriam, > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, Miriam R. wrote: > > > El jue., 30 ene. 2020 a las 14:46, Johannes Schindelin > > () escribi=C3=B3: > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Miriam Rubio wrote: > > > > > > > + > > > > + return res < 0 ? -res : res; > > > > > > This is a change in behavior, though: previously we guaranteed that t= he > > > exit code is either 0 on success or 1 upon failure. I am not quite su= re > > > that we want to change that behavior. > > > > I think this is because different error codes might enable a bisecting > > script calling the bisect command that uses this function to do > > different things depending on the exit status of the bisect command. > > Oops. I am _totally_ wrong on this. > > As you are changing a lot of `exit()` to `return -` with the > intention to turn the value into an exit code only at the > `cmd_bisect__helper()` level, this is actually required a change. > > I am a bit uneasy about this, but I could not see any return values in > `bisect.c` other than 0 and -1, prior to this patch series. > > However, I would love to see this refactored into its own commit, more > toward the beginning of the patch series, with a very clean commit messag= e > that describes that intention of being _the_ exit point from `bisect.c`. Ok. Noted > > Without this change, you simply cannot change the `exit();` calls in > `bisect.c` for any `` other than 0 or 1. > > Sorry that it took me so long to wrap my head around this rather trivial > idea. Please, don't worry :) Thank you again! Best, Miriam. > > Ciao, > Dscho