Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Modifying in PATCH 7 some code that you introduced in PATCH 3 is > suspicious. Is there any reason you did not name the variable > "terms_defined" in the first place? (i.e. squash this hunk and the other > instance of start_bad_good into PATCH 3) > > (Whether this is a rethorical question is up to you ;-) ) In the previouses versions where we only want to introduce old/new, the terms can only be defined in bisect_start if the user typed start <bad> <good>. The name "start_bad_good" is not very explicit indeed, but isn't it more appropriate in this case than terms_defined ? > I don't understand why you need to delete this file. I did not review > thoroughly so there may be a reason, but you can help the reader with a > comment here. I think it's a mistake. I'd say we should put this test just before the "bisect_clean_state || exit" line, but that would deserve more attention indeed. The idea is to delete the file at the right moment because we don't want it to exist again when the user starts an other bisection, but also have an intelligent behaviour if the start command fails. -- 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