Hi Dscho, On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:06 PM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Christian Couder wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:26 PM Johannes Schindelin > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Instead, those `eval` calls are required because the arguments are > > > provided in quoted form. For example, during the execution of t6030.68, > > > the `eval` would expand the call > > > > > > eval "git bisect--helper --bisect-start $rev $tail" > > > > > > to > > > > > > git bisect--helper --bisect-start '--term-old' 'term2' '--term-new' 'term1' > > > > Yeah, that was also what I found (along with the bug I sent a patch for). > > I suspected that you had found that out, but I really wanted a record on > the Git mailing list about our findings. > > It might be a good idea to add a paragraph to the respective patches, > along these lines: > > Note that the `eval` in the changed line of `git-bisect.sh` cannot be > dropped: it is necessary because the `rev` and the `tail` > variables may contain multiple, quoted arguments that need to be > passed to `bisect--helper` (without the quotes, naturally). Yeah, sure. Hopefully Miriam will send this in the commit message of the right patch which is in the subset of the patch series she hasn't sent. > > > Therefore, the `eval` really needs to stay in place (also the other `eval` > > > I had originally suggested to remove, for the same reason). > > > > > > I would still recommend appending `|| exit`, even if it just so happens > > > that we will eventually abort when the `bisect--helper` command failed > > > anyway, because the next command will then fail, and abort. But it's > > > cleaner to abort already when this invocation failed rather than relying > > > on that side effect. > > > > Yeah, I think it's a good solution. > > Excellent. I think we can actually move forward with the entire patch > series now, not just the first subset, right? Yeah, I think so too. Thanks, Christian.
