Hey Junio,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> +static int mark_good(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid,
>> + int flag, void *cb_data)
>> +{
>> + int *m_good = (int *)cb_data;
>> + *m_good = 0;
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static char *bisect_voc(char *revision_type)
>> +{
>> + if (!strcmp(revision_type, "bad"))
>> + return "bad|new";
>> + if (!strcmp(revision_type, "good"))
>> + return "good|old";
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int bisect_next_check(const struct bisect_terms *terms,
>> + const char *current_term)
>> +{
>> + int missing_good = 1, missing_bad = 1;
>> + char *bad_ref = xstrfmt("refs/bisect/%s", terms->term_bad.buf);
>> + char *good_glob = xstrfmt("%s-*", terms->term_good.buf);
>> + char *bad_syn, *good_syn;
>> +
>> + if (ref_exists(bad_ref))
>> + missing_bad = 0;
>> + free(bad_ref);
>> +
>> + for_each_glob_ref_in(mark_good, good_glob, "refs/bisect/",
>> + (void *) &missing_good);
>> + free(good_glob);
>> +
>> + if (!missing_good && !missing_bad)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (!current_term)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + if (missing_good && !missing_bad && current_term &&
>> + !strcmp(current_term, terms->term_good.buf)) {
>> + char *yesno;
>> + /*
>> + * have bad (or new) but not good (or old). We could bisect
>> + * although this is less optimum.
>> + */
>> + fprintf(stderr, _("Warning: bisecting only with a %s commit\n"),
>> + terms->term_bad.buf);
>> + if (!isatty(0))
>> + return 0;
>> + /*
>> + * TRANSLATORS: Make sure to include [Y] and [n] in your
>> + * translation. The program will only accept English input
>> + * at this point.
>> + */
>> + yesno = git_prompt(_("Are you sure [Y/n]? "), PROMPT_ECHO);
>> + if (starts_with(yesno, "N") || starts_with(yesno, "n"))
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + bad_syn = xstrdup(bisect_voc("bad"));
>> + good_syn = xstrdup(bisect_voc("good"));
>> + if (!is_empty_or_missing_file(git_path_bisect_start())) {
>> + error(_("You need to give me at least one %s and "
>> + "%s revision. You can use \"git bisect %s\" "
>> + "and \"git bisect %s\" for that. \n"),
>> + bad_syn, good_syn, bad_syn, good_syn);
>> + free(bad_syn);
>> + free(good_syn);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + else {
>> + error(_("You need to start by \"git bisect start\". You "
>> + "then need to give me at least one %s and %s "
>> + "revision. You can use \"git bisect %s\" and "
>> + "\"git bisect %s\" for that.\n"),
>> + good_syn, bad_syn, bad_syn, good_syn);
>> + free(bad_syn);
>> + free(good_syn);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> + free(bad_syn);
>> + free(good_syn);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>
> This one looks OK, but I think the same "Wouldn't it become cleaner
> to have a 'finish:' label at the end and jump there?" comment
> applies to this implementation, too.
For this goto can simply things. Will do!
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
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