René Scharfe wrote: > > Am 12.01.22 um 18:50 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > > So exit code values are only very vaguely standardized. It's very > > possible that there are programs that use 126 or 127 to signal > > something other than "can't execute" or "cannot find command". Under > > the new rules the bisect run script would have to translate them to > > some lower value. > > Reserving 126 and 127 shouldn't cause too much trouble, but there's > also a way to avoid it: bisect run could checkout a known-good > revision first and abort if the script returns non-zero for any > reason, including its non-existence. I can't say I'm overly enthusiastic about this trade-off. I think most people would check their bisect scripts against the good revision by hand before starting bisect: why introduce one redundant step for users like me who tend to bump their heads, because they're a bit rusty with machines? Again, I don't know if this is a good idea, but if exit codes from the shell aren't standardized, surely fork() and exec() would have a better spec? So, perhaps remove the little git-bisect.sh and rewrite it in C? I'd be up for this task, if we decide that this is a better way to go. Warm regards, Ram
