On 10/27/2017 05:06 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> index 0f9c3e63821b8..ab0580ce0089a 100644
> --- a/builtin/bisect--helper.c
> +++ b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
[...]
> +static int bisect_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char **argv, int argc)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + if (get_terms(terms))
> + return error(_("no terms defined"));
> +
> + if (argc > 1)
> + return error(_("--bisect-term requires exactly one argument"));
> +
> + if (argc == 0)
> + return !printf(_("Your current terms are %s for the old state\n"
> + "and %s for the new state.\n"),
> + terms->term_good, terms->term_bad);
Same as in 1/8: you probably want "printf(...); return 0;" except there
is a good reason.
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) {
> + if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-good"))
> + printf(_("%s\n"), terms->term_good);
> + else if (!strcmp(argv[i], "--term-bad"))
> + printf(_("%s\n"), terms->term_bad);
The last two printfs: I think there is no point in translating "%s\n",
so using "%s\n" instead of _("%s\n") looks more reasonable.
> + else
> + error(_("BUG: invalid argument %s for 'git bisect terms'.\n"
> + "Supported options are: "
> + "--term-good|--term-old and "
> + "--term-bad|--term-new."), argv[i]);
Should this be "return error(...)"?
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
Stephan
