From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 5/8] bisect: introduce --no-checkout support into porcelain. Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:27:03 +0200 Message-ID: <201108030727.04246.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> References: <1312284545-2426-1-git-send-email-jon.seymour@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, j6t@kdbg.org, jnareb@gmail.com To: Jon Seymour X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 03 07:27:18 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QoTzC-0001vd-Aw for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:27:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754536Ab1HCF1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:27:14 -0400 Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.3]:46528 "EHLO smtp3-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754452Ab1HCF1N (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:27:13 -0400 Received: from style.localnet (unknown [82.243.130.161]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0724FA6225; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:27:05 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-8-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tuesday 02 August 2011 16:41:13 Jon Seymour wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Christian Couder > > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jon Seymour wrote: > >> @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ require_work_tree > >> _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]' > >> _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40" > >> > >> +BISECT_MODE=$(test -f "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MODE" && cat > >> "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MODE") > > > > Could you put this line just where it is needed, that is in > > bisect_next() and bisect_reset()? > > Ultimately, it is also needed in paths that call bisect_state(), such > as bisect_run() and bisect_skip() so I am not keen to do this. > > If I was to do this, I'd prefer to change uses of $BISECT_MODE with a > call to a function bisect_mode() that does the same thing. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to have a bisect_mode() function. I don't like very much to blindly call some code when we might not need it. Thanks, Christian.