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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 454231F66E for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 18:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1446805AbiEGS3z (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2022 14:29:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60788 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230521AbiEGS3w (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2022 14:29:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2C4220FD for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 11:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E2418FAE0; Sat, 7 May 2022 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=b6bQ7TTQF1yZ8yH1rgoiqF+YpC7ReiLNTJZ891 c6/aI=; b=PgBcp2RG8Q6CCvqbSXpJwUDMpWnNHXVQUtYJHA28V93/ttJvVkJ0Uz nbdi0C6hnhjzbRjYbabbLuHlBkwag4LetmrZ/ot+cqG5mf/AQVJfG5omKLw8JxIQ yazLjrM1apM7e6ljfCx/akW8eeczPpwxr4wx2OUN81DP7pIGT9z4c= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140CC18FADF; Sat, 7 May 2022 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.65.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DE0A18FADC; Sat, 7 May 2022 14:25:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Chris Down Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Christian Couder , Taylor Blau , kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] bisect: status improvements when bisect is not fully fleshed out References: Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 11:25:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Chris Down's message of "Sat, 7 May 2022 11:58:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 24BC2212-CE33-11EC-AA05-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Chris Down writes: > Thanks Junio and Taylor for reviewing. I have the following action > items for v3: > > # [1/3] bisect: lowercase "Bisect:" to "bisect:" prior to wider use > > - New patch My preference actually were to leave this change out of the topic. That is, instead of using "status:" in newer messages, have them use the same "Bisecting:", so that all the "where we are in the bisect session?" messages from the command use that same prefix. I also wonder if the existing "Bisecting:" messages should also be sent as comment to the log file, using the same bisect_log_printf() helper (with the v2 patches, they are still using printf() and sent only to the standard output). But this, just like "status:" -> "Bisecting:" -> "bisecting:" you reacted to, is just "I wonder...", and is not a suggestion to make changes as part of this series. Something to think about for a possible follow-up after we complete this topic. But I do not mind if you want to go the extra mile to do all of the above as part of the series. It would make the series to require more reviews, which is why I generally recommend against extending the scope of the (initial) topic too much and instead leave as much additional changes to follow-up series after the initial series is done. > # [2/3] bisect: output state before we are ready to compute bisection > - Fix multiline comment style in bisect.h > - Zero-initialise bisect_state directly, don't use memset() > - Pass the bisect state struct as an argument into bisect_print_status > - Change from "status:" to "bisecting:" > > # [3/3] bisect: output bisect setup status in bisect log > > - Use strbuf in bisect_log_printf > - Change `git bisect log' use an output file in tests instead of piping > > I'll wait a bit to see if there's any further feedback and then will send v3. > > Thanks!