Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next

[Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>]

Le mardi 27 mai 2008, Santi Béjar a écrit :
> In case you don't know the next step, if it is "git commit",
> "git commit --amend", "git rebase --continue" or something else.

[...]

> diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh
> index 4bcbace..27d3946 100755
> --- a/git-bisect.sh
> +++ b/git-bisect.sh
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  #!/bin/sh
>
> -USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run]'
> +USAGE='[help|start|bad|good|skip|next|reset|visualize|replay|log|run|wha
>t]' LONG_USAGE='git bisect help
>          print this long help message.
>  git bisect start [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<pathspec>...]
> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ git bisect log
>          show bisect log.
>  git bisect run <cmd>...
>          use <cmd>... to automatically bisect.
> +git bisect what...
> +        explain what to do if in the midle of a bisect.

Perhaps it's better to add something like this first:

git bisect status
	show the current bisect state

It could tell if we are currently bisecting and show the "good", "bad" 
and "skip"ped revs and the content of the BISECT_START and BISECT_NAMES 
(and perhaps BISECT_RUN) files. 

>  Please use "git help bisect" to get the full man page.'
>
> @@ -206,6 +208,14 @@ bisect_next_check() {
>  	test -n "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/good-*")" || missing_good=t
>
>  	case "$missing_good,$missing_bad,$1" in
> +	,,what)
> +		# have both good and bad - ok
> +		echo "Test the commit and mark it as"
> +		echo "bad)  $ git bisect bad"
> +		echo "good) $ git bisect good"
> +		echo "skip) $ git bisect skip"
> +		exit
> +		;;
>  	,,*)
>
>  		: have both good and bad - ok
>
>  		;;
> @@ -213,6 +223,16 @@ bisect_next_check() {
>  		# do not have both but not asked to fail - just report.
>  		false
>  		;;
> +	,t,what)
> +		# have good but not bad.
> +		echo "No bad commit, mark one with \"git bisect bad <rev>"\"
> +		exit
> +		;;
> +	t,,what)
> +		# have bad but not good.
> +		echo "No good commit, mark one with \"git bisect good <rev>\""
> +		exit
> +		;;
>  	t,,good)
>  		# have bad but not good.  we could bisect although
>  		# this is less optimum.
> @@ -224,6 +244,14 @@ bisect_next_check() {
>  		fi
>
>  		: bisect without good...
>
>  		;;
> +	t,t,what)
> +		# TODO: Reuse the text in the next case
> +		echo 'You need to give me at least one good' \
> +			'and one bad revisions.'
> +		echo '(You can use "git bisect bad" and' \
> +			'"git bisect good" for that.)'
> +		exit
> +		;;
>  	*)
>  		THEN=''
>  		test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" || {
> @@ -497,6 +525,11 @@ bisect_run () {
>      done
>  }
>
> +bisect_what () {
> +	test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" || return 1

It seems not very friendly to just "return 1" when not bisecting.
And before my last patch to use BISECT_START to check if we are bisecting, 
it would perhaps have been better to use 'test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES"'.

Thanks,
Christian.