From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332ADC00523 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 01:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FB42072C for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 01:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="xjBMbNZu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727217AbgAFBQY (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:16:24 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51710 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727170AbgAFBQX (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:16:23 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABE9A8074; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:16:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QV9yD+ExNKkdGuMSJyHwXBiiNyY=; b=xjBMbN ZulwSwE7WKW2anN/ZpwDHpgdGU0in4x/2gR8CshpCaBV9B3AmVBwmbJeKKVX/r+U AbWfJ05YVqd8G0L0snw/D1SJ8Ngvxor8yJ6ojywpW7fi9dBlF4DP1u8nvQNZvWdh vpIuWyr429CdyrnbkSKbZO1r+ySMVXizXRJpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=CxiqSbukgyYrV8WWXhFh0Xu08pop3ZyU F9g3IJ/o+nHq68+lDqLSdPKFcsjRUu8g8TOYf9PyGLBOXJ+g0OtVS4X8cNpfbnVU 7e7+8W2C4xS6mfoP9+lgSERqvgLsSnhkHbCc4kT3eJzWTX/FncNRe9ms7XaWbwZ1 dRfIpoJexvo= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DD1A8073; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:16:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8393AA8072; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:16:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stephen Oberholtzer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] bisect run: allow inverting meaning of exit code References: <20200103043027.4537-1-stevie@qrpff.net> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 17:16:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Stephen Oberholtzer's message of "Sat, 4 Jan 2020 01:22:21 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 23C7FC70-3022-11EA-8A92-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stephen Oberholtzer writes: >> In any case, I wonder why something along the line of the attached >> patch is not sufficient and it needs this much code. >> ... > Unfortunately, that doesn't behave properly. > As far as 'git bisect run' is concerned, there are four distinct sets > ... > What needs to happen is that status code lists for "test passed" (#1) > and "test failed" (#2) are swapped; even when bisecting a fix, #3 > (untestable) and #4 (malfunction) remain unchanged. Your patch remaps > case #4 to case #1. Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to give you a perfect solution and that was why I said "along the line of...". I know I ignored the 128 and above, as I usually trust that our contributors are competent enough to be able to fill in the missing details given an outline. The key takeaway I wanted you to notice was that a single case statement that maps the exit code external command would give us would look sufficient, without any of the {SUCCESS,FAIL}_TERM magic you had in your version, which indicates that there is more than the simple "using a run script to find where a bug was fixed can be done by swapping exit code" going on. And it is quite unclear why that is needed either from the patch or the text that accompanied the patch. Thanks.