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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,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 A767C1FB09 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 22:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727826AbhAZWB7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:01:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52777 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730405AbhAZSc7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:32:59 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28B0AB472; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:32:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=zDqkpd08/PBGShEOIpaPrHQOA1c=; b=HiYxQX Lrn1YOUGJW0xpwQ4lcZA2tZyt9CjxDUbsxum1/ctLvzpXKY0/8WhcWsLCKWjP5UU 4E0tfPkPoch3MkA+qLX7I29hdxSVTSVIWJ1mlTh1el3G5tHQ7yX/VIIMO/syFKcE UvWqKTBwRT6mClrWcgCGKpvkV7+JP4O41dRTo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=k+u+y0RmUiWCSUFMT8Jd8VETCEpch37O EPBjYQZfHzzeKlevW/u1IigOZJ6sTz20cH2M4ZdR3nUnocFcgSCZp562gR0uf7i8 mGNRm94pwrVZi87AaHv3eSEEFGwvVWrJkiD4a6YEbmu7V9G5lxi+loVvSWUU3NlJ rCkfM0Lcb5s= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E61AB471; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:32:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0882BAB46F; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:32:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Miriam R." Cc: Rafael Silva , git Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_log` shell function in C References: <20210123154056.48234-1-mirucam@gmail.com> <20210123154056.48234-2-mirucam@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:32:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Miriam R.'s message of "Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:23:32 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D095AE08-6004-11EB-AFE7-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "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 the >> 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. Thanks.