From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthieu Moy Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] bisect: add the terms old/new Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:09:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1839018688.331427.1433920317370.JavaMail.zimbra@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, remi lespinet , louis--alexandre stuber , remi galan-alfonso , guillaume pages , chriscool@tuxfamily.org, thomasxnguy@gmail.com, valentinduperray@gmail.com To: Antoine Delaite X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 10 10:09:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z2b4k-0005bA-1l for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:09:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751074AbbFJIJZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:09:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.imag.fr ([129.88.30.17]:50834 "EHLO rominette.imag.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbbFJIJU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:09:20 -0400 Received: from clopinette.imag.fr (clopinette.imag.fr [129.88.34.215]) by rominette.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5A899Un014103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:09:09 +0200 Received: from anie.imag.fr (anie.imag.fr [129.88.7.32]) by clopinette.imag.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5A89Aqh014133; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:09:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1839018688.331427.1433920317370.JavaMail.zimbra@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> (Antoine Delaite's message of "Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:11:57 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (rominette.imag.fr [129.88.30.17]); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:09:12 +0200 (CEST) X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact MI2S MIM for more information X-MailScanner-ID: t5A899Un014103 X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-IMAG-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-IMAG-MailScanner-From: matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1434528553.79412@UX7eUlkTNEBlKWcj4Xsv8w Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Antoine Delaite writes: > Hi, > > thanks for the review, > > (sorry if you received this twice) > > Junio C Hamano writes: > >>Just throwing a suggestion. You could perhaps add a new verb to be >>used before starting to do anything, e.g. >> >> $ git bisect terms new old > > Yes it would be nice and should not be hard to implement. But it was not > the idea of how the code was made by our elders. "Somebody else did it like that" is not a good justification. Especially when the previous code was not merged: the code wasn't finished. But I actually disagree with the fact that it was not the idea. The point of having the terms in BISECT_TERMS was precisely to be generic enough. Had the goal been just to distinguish good/bad and old/new, we would have needed only one bit of information, and encoding it with the existance/non-existance of a file would have been sufficient (as you tried to do in addition to BISECT_TERMS). > For now we just rebased, corrected and finishing to implement > functionalities. functionalities is one thing, but the code should be maintainable to be merged in git.git. Git would not be where it is if Junio was merging patches based on "it works, we'll see if the code is good enough later" kinds of judgments ;-). Moving from "one hardcoded pair of terms" to "two hardcoded pairs of terms" is a nice feature, but hardly a step in the right direction wrt maintainability. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/