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-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_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B4C1F4B4 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233569AbhA0OM0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:12:26 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40324 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233266AbhA0OK4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:10:56 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FA23C061574 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 06:10:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id c20so1858683ilj.13 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 06:10:16 -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 :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6aY1q5Icoi5dpktvrozUtgeX0McrFoZ59md2xg2p0XU=; b=IWZHWcsOmf+wTnaWfUpxJljdR9Badalfhw0qMd6gH9Pns6wYHQqPMx2TJkTv/0XPnq BzVNVfaA4iGrnAaOG/xYdiyYxQWwiuKraO5UCGWVd3g1XW+jw6MKrw2WondbJYlaunif dzWKOHmcxcB9WQOIJFgUa60ExEgvViF5MGW2q8Amaj7W7Hn1TiQAjhiqENE3Rh4Rozca 0KSljwZIziqTLwkhnqzusJ/fQ3X3XOmZ9liMkgg3AkOl9sOQrebOMI4Hvg8gvweQVP0m i1SICfE6Rh144ZD2bXz/AVBCtP1scINvY7qLt7krNq2qbpN92ZCpgcosKF1Z9Gf5aQ5g jRqQ== 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:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6aY1q5Icoi5dpktvrozUtgeX0McrFoZ59md2xg2p0XU=; b=XjqUi/SnQXiWYeFEXQbkvgdcZQocqrauuZvL71J3+Rg//UmmJ8q5UScQN6+VkrOC5X 8HOoHdb8qDgWoTnVyg6sCu8TGh/DX+Q59GMfEfSHhnMH8EqpYL1e+ClZASy1CsfaCRMW uKrMA/81gwx4TYYrOCu8DZGJLzEORVBV3UwJt2+9ILHzmRwIXhyewHrWDEbnvigrohrn 4S3/sQ2rOk5gdugBVNWxiYCoB9PJVj25cl8bmCQEdHkRaBlzgGni7Pm/p2FFyf2TTod5 aiQ/kp1UzkaVnFQtNZNFtYK98VXbdAJQoo0NC9oTE+hGX4GHMSwxCzOqO+tdyIWV4y+g U61A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VxEBw3t+P/YXi74199okHyauyh9Q+n0xXkNzIH0ehV0WJwAak 7aqMfTvjILknc5olgewcmVxL4rhtg6B0eVCowEE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFsm8Im22cPWi+qjsR7IZs9QCtnXiPnv5iSVeKNQ9EGGIWnqIra6aJbHdkH70UfHHIN9Pib2Dj7pDXdqduXt0= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d987:: with SMTP id r7mr8562485iln.3.1611756615858; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 06:10:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210123154056.48234-1-mirucam@gmail.com> <20210123154056.48234-2-mirucam@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Miriam R." Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:10:04 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_log` shell function in C To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Rafael Silva , git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, El mar, 26 ene 2021 a las 19:32, Junio C Hamano () escri= bi=C3=B3: > > "Miriam R." writes: > > >> Although I compiled and did small test on the above code snippet, don'= t > >> trust it blindly and perform your own test and judge whether this is t= he > >> best way to implement this shortcoming. > > Ok, thank you. > > I am not the original author of this subcommand reimplementation > > and I don't know if there is a reason for the difference with the > > error message. Maybe we can wait for some other reviewers opinion. > > Sorry I missed this thread. > > My understanding is that this topic is an attempt to "reimplement" > what is there in the scripted version, so any deviation of behaviour > obserbable from outside, which is *not* justified, should by > definition be treated as a bug. > > If the original author did not explain why the behaviour difference > exists and defend why the new behaviour in the reimplementation is > better, and if you do not think of a good reason why the behaviour > should be different and the new behaviour is better, then let's > treat it in a bug and fix it. > Ok, I will send another patch series adding this. Thank you. Miriam. > Thanks.