From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249271FD99 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751950AbcH2RHS (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:07:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:53020 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753500AbcH2RHR (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:07:17 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3010E37B9C; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:06:49 -0400 (EDT) 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=m+HW5uTHCLnrmMfJa/dqzI1vEX0=; b=pGYXf4 wfK+kfpGdZd9OjtT8JIXtuSSBmF/g1g5ZGm7y7EimASxbBj5OtoqoMkV24RWnrs4 2QiMXg0KMXs0WkIU5Te5JtbmJTulUZV2XHTCA8PJ7zSZxbzd1AGjOZzvzA9GMdsE jsx6FIfkHNu1/hRg9LU9jidEJ5EIh4KwruGz4= 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=RDcPPYW+gAvq+kAeM5dh1sCMwty9hvk8 ydNsJIidmYLtgK6wgZBDp7ZoZ6KFScGkZtbHMT7BiQdXXL1egpogHoN6OTMsm4gy 0i6oUWo3ajgRbAQb0ATOwzBENBNL6NEWZRxmlHOzWbId5Noil2jIKiNrEECREC2r o8Ad4yhbkhA= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279FE37B9B; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9335137B9A; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:06:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Pranit Bauva Cc: Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 07/27] bisect--helper: `bisect_reset` shell function in C References: <01020156b73fe5b4-5dc768ab-b73b-4a21-ab92-018e2a7aa6f7-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> <01020156b73fe69a-13136cfb-4daa-4f5d-9b56-537adf2c6942-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:06:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Pranit Bauva's message of "Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:22:23 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F8E9B200-6E0A-11E6-ABC2-51057B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Pranit Bauva writes: >> with the original >> >> case $# in >> 0) reset to the branch ;; >> 1) reset to the commit ;; >> *) give usage and die ;; >> esac >> >> and took the difference and reacted "ah, excess parameters are not >> diagnosed in this function". >> >> Your caller does complain about excess parameters without giving >> usage, and that is what I missed. >> >> I am not sure if you intended to change the behaviour in this case >> to avoid giving the usage string; I tend to think it is a good >> change, but I didn't see it mentioned in the proposed commit log, >> which also contributed to my not noticing the test in the caller. > > I could include this in the commit message. Nah, it was something anybody could notice with 2 more minutes of reading and pondering from the patch text alone. Not worth spending more time on the log message on this one. Thanks.