Re: [PATCH 3/4] bisect: simplify the add of new bisect terms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> That is very different from ENOENT, which is an expected error when
> you are not using a customized terms.

But in the current state, we are going to create bisect_terms even if
the bisection is in bad/good mode. Should we differentiate the erors
then ? and should we abort the bisection instead of doing it in
bad/good mode by default ?
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]