Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> + if (!bs.nr_good && !bs.nr_bad)
>> + printf(_("status: waiting for both good and bad commits\n"));
>> + else if (bs.nr_good)
>> + printf(Q_("status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commit known\n",
>> + "status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commits known\n",
>> + bs.nr_good), bs.nr_good);
>> + else
>> + printf(_("status: waiting for good commit(s), bad commit known\n"));
>> +}
>
> Could or should these printf()'s be advise() calls instead?
Given that existing bisect_next_all() mesasge to give estimates come
to the standard output, I do not think so.
/*
* TRANSLATORS: the last %s will be replaced with "(roughly %d
* steps)" translation.
*/
printf(Q_("Bisecting: %d revision left to test after this %s\n",
"Bisecting: %d revisions left to test after this %s\n",
nr), nr, steps_msg);
I view these new messages as merely correcting the gap we used to
have. We should have been giving feedback to the end-user when they
did something, but instead we were giving feedback only when we did
something, which resulted in the original "Huh?" that motivated this
series.
I actually wonder if we should do s/status:/Bisecting:/ to make the
messages even more uniform, but if we were to go in that direction
in the longer term, we'd probably be downcasing "Bisecting" to match
our error/warning/info messages.
Thanks.
