Hi Ævar,

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, 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.
>
> To the extent that Johannes doesn't have time I'd by happy to re-roll
> this & look at it/fix whatever outstanding issues I spot.
>
> I gave it a once over a few weeks ago, and didn't see any outstanding
> problems with it worth rewriting in that iteration, but didn't have time
> to give it stress testing to see if there were still some lurking
> unexpected/untested behavior changes.
>
> Johannes?

I saw that this was marked as "Needs review." for quite a while. Seeing as
this patch series has been kept out of `next` for quite a few iterations
basically solely due to your concerns (others have said they're fine with
it), I kind of expected you to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down (combined
with clear, concise suggestions how to get this moving again).

So now you say that you did not see any outstanding problems? That would
proabably have been good information for Junio to use to move it along
while it did not conflict.

Ciao,
Johannes