From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: "bisect run" can be given bangs before the run script. Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:29:42 -0700 Message-ID: <7vmz0m3261.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070503070607.fa2ffe92.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Couder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 03 07:30:00 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HjTt8-00086I-0U for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 07:29:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766556AbXECF3q (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 01:29:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767388AbXECF3p (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 01:29:45 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:58783 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766556AbXECF3o (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 01:29:44 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070503052942.XRSV24310.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Thu, 3 May 2007 01:29:42 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id uVVj1W0031kojtg0000000; Thu, 03 May 2007 01:29:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070503070607.fa2ffe92.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (Christian Couder's message of "Thu, 3 May 2007 07:06:07 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: I am not convinced that '!' is a good extension for two and half reasons. * The expected use is not quite clear. If it is not used to run a custom test script but something stock as "make", by the nature of UNIX exit status convention, you are looking for the commit that _fixed_ some breakage (i.e. "which commit fixed the compilation error?"). While sometimes that is a useful thing to do, it feels somewhat of limited value. On the other hand, if you are running a custom test script, I do not think it is unreasonable to always require that a test script to signal "bad" with small non-zero, "good" with zero, and error with high non-zero status, as we already do. * How should this interact with the "high non-zero status means an error and we cannot bisect" return convention? * I was hoping that we can officially support "don't know, cannot test this one, please give me another" for interactive use, and at the same time allow the run-script used by "git bisect run" to signal such with a special exit value (perhaps "exit 42"). Taken together with the previous point, it is not clear how '!' should interact with such an enhancement.