On Sunday 31 July 2011 21:48:40 you wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Christian Couder
>
> <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >> @@ -69,13 +71,18 @@ bisect_start() {
> >> orig_args=$(git rev-parse --sq-quote "$@")
> >> bad_seen=0
> >> eval=''
> >> + BISECT_UPDATE_REF=
> >> while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do
> >> arg="$1"
> >> case "$arg" in
> >> --)
> >> - shift
> >> - break
> >> - ;;
> >> + shift; break ;;
> >
> > Please don't change this. We try to avoid having many instructions on
> > the same line like this.
>
> Sure.
>
> FWIW: there are two places in git-am.sh and git-repack.sh that put shift on
> the same line as another statement,. Also this:
>
> case "$arg" in --) has_double_dash=1; break ;; esac
Yeah, we are not always consistent.
> However, 'fixing' those can be another change, assessed on its own merits.
Yeah, but I don't think it's worth it at least for the line above.
> >> + --no-checkout)
> >> + BISECT_UPDATE_REF=HEAD; shift ;;
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >
> > test -z "$BISECT_UPDATE_REF" && BISECT_UPDATE_REF=HEAD
> >
> > so that "--update-ref=someref --no-checkout" works the same as
> > "--no-checkout --update-ref=someref".
>
> Got the intent, thanks.
>
> How about BISECT_UPDATE_REF=${BISECT_UPDATE_REF:-HEAD}?
Yeah, nice.
Thanks,
Christian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html