On 25/04/21 07.18, Ramsay Jones wrote:
This patch was created directly on top of commit e4c7b33747 and tested with the test from Bagas Sanjaya [1] (ie the second version of the stand-alone test file t6031-*.sh, rather than the newer patch that adds the test to t6030-*.sh). I applied this patch to the current master branch (@311531c9de55) and it also passed the test in [1].
I have just sent v2 of t6030 version of my test [1]. Please test this patch against that v2 test. And if the test passes (breakage vanished), please update the test by do instructions in the FIXME comment lines of [1].
@@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) break; case BISECT_SKIP: set_terms(&terms, "bad", "good"); + get_terms(&terms);
I'm not fluent in C, but I read these lines above as "ok, we set terms from &terms, bad and good as fallback in case the reference is empty; then we get these terms from the reference". Wouldn't it makes sense if we can say "get the terms from &terms" first, then "set the terms from the reference, if empty use bad and good as fallback"? [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210425080508.154159-1-bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx/ -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
