René Scharfe wrote: > Using the shell allows the bisect run command to be any shell command, > not just some script. E.g. you could bisect a build failure with just > "git bisect run make". Quite useful. Ah, that's quite useful, yes. The problem of improving user experience with bisect is getting more and more hairy. May I suggest something tractable, albeit not too elegant, and certainly not perfect, in view of improving user experience in common use cases? 1. If argv[0] of the supplied command is found in $PATH, check it for executable permissions. Otherwise, error out. It's highly unlikely that the user meant a shell builtin, which would supersede the executable in $PATH. 2. If argv[0] is found in the current directory, prompt for "Did you mean ... [Y/n]?" 3. If checking on merge-base fails, improve the error message with "Perhaps your bisect script is broken?" and reset bisect automatically. Warm regards, Ram
