From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Loeliger Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-what: explain what to do next Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:05 -0500 Message-ID: <483EC405.6090400@freescale.com> References: <1211877299-27255-1-git-send-email-sbejar@gmail.com> <200805290639.38134.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <7vlk1tpug5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christian Couder , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santi_B=E9?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?jar?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 29 17:06:09 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K1jZy-0004J7-AW for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:58:10 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752882AbYE2O5R (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 10:57:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752583AbYE2O5Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 10:57:16 -0400 Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net ([192.88.158.102]:33962 "EHLO az33egw01.freescale.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752341AbYE2O5Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 10:57:16 -0400 Received: from az33smr01.freescale.net (az33smr01.freescale.net [10.64.34.199]) by az33egw01.freescale.net (8.12.11/az33egw01) with ESMTP id m4TEujLT022844; Thu, 29 May 2008 07:56:45 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.214.73.8] (mvp-10-214-73-8.am.freescale.net [10.214.73.8]) by az33smr01.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m4TEuih7029390; Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:44 -0500 (CDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <7vlk1tpug5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> 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"'. > > The reason for this silence is because Santi wants to call potential > culprits in turn and stop when one responds "Yeah, I am the guilty one who > threw a monkey wrench into the user's workflow". For that to work, "No, > the user is not in the middle of any interaction with me" response needs > to be silent. Hrm. Do both? Have the normal interactive user command be more verbose, but let the pseudo-scripted version supply an additional --status-only flag as it sequences through the status checks? jdl