Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bisect: implement "bisect dunno" to mark untestable revisions.

[Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>]

Le lundi 8 octobre 2007, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:
> > diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
> > index 388887a..c556318 100755
> > --- a/git-bisect.sh
> > +++ b/git-bisect.sh
> > @@ -143,7 +145,7 @@ bisect_write_bad() {
> >
> >  bisect_good() {
> >  	bisect_autostart
> > -        case "$#" in
> > +	case "$#" in
>
> White space breakage.

The patch tries to fix some white space breakages.

> > @@ -153,7 +155,6 @@ bisect_good() {
> >  		rev=$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev^{commit}") || exit
> >  		bisect_write_good "$rev"
> >  		echo "git-bisect good $rev" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG"
> > -
>
> ?

It also removes this unneeded blank line.

> > @@ -164,6 +165,28 @@ bisect_write_good() {
> >  	echo "# good: "$(git show-branch $rev) >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG"
> >  }
> >
> > +bisect_dunno() {
> > +	bisect_autostart
> > +	case "$#" in
> > +	0)    revs=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) || exit ;;
> > +	*)    revs=$(git rev-parse --revs-only --no-flags "$@") &&
> > +		test '' != "$revs" || die "Bad rev input: $@" ;;
> > +	esac
> > +	for rev in $revs
> > +	do
> > +		rev=$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev^{commit}") || exit
> > +		bisect_write_dunno "$rev"
> > +		echo "git-bisect dunno $rev" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG"
>
> Should the last line not be put into bisect_write_dunno?  OTOH this is
> the only call site of that function, so I strongly doubt that the
> function (consisting of 3 lines, where the first is 'rev="$1"') is
> necessary at all.

Well, there are "bisect_write_bad" and "bisect_write_good" that already do 
the same thing as "bisect_write_dunno". In fact I thought that it was 
better to just copy "bisect_dunno" from "bisect_good" 
and "bisect_write_dunno" from "bisect_write_good".

If needed I can send another patch to factorise these functions.

> > @@ -206,17 +229,104 @@ bisect_auto_next() {
> >  	bisect_next_check && bisect_next || :
> >  }
> >
> > +search_dunno() {
> > +	_hash="$1"
> > +	_dunno="$2"
> > +
> > +	for _val in $_dunno ; do
> > +		case $_hash in $_val) return 1 ;; esac
> > +	done
>
> This would be faster as
>
> 	case " $1" in " $2") return 1 ;; esac
>
> I guess.

I will try your suggestion and send an updated patch. Thanks.

> But as I said in the other reply, I think this logic belongs into the C
> core, instead of generating mostly useless information, passing it down
> to the script, and filtering it out again.

Yeah, it's not efficient.

Best regards,
Christian.