Louis Stuber <louis--alexandre.stuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >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 agree with Louis, but maybe a consistant commit history is more important. But if only the first patches (which implement old/new ) would come to be accepted the name of the variable would sounds strange. >> 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. Yes if the start commands fails, like if you gave wrong sha1, it would be nice not to have to type again 'git bisect terms ...' . There is no use to put it before clean_state because clean_state because clean_state will actually delete the file. So we can just let clean_state do this. -- 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