Hi Elijah, On Tue, 16 Aug 2022, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:49 AM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > > * js/bisect-in-c (2022-06-27) 16 commits > > > - bisect: no longer try to clean up left-over `.git/head-name` files > > > - bisect: remove Cogito-related code > > > - Turn `git bisect` into a full built-in > > > - bisect: move even the command-line parsing to `bisect--helper` > > > - bisect: teach the `bisect--helper` command to show the correct usage strings > > > - bisect--helper: return only correct exit codes in `cmd_*()` > > > - bisect--helper: move the `BISECT_STATE` case to the end > > > - bisect--helper: make `--bisect-state` optional > > > - bisect--helper: align the sub-command order with git-bisect.sh > > > - bisect--helper: using `--bisect-state` without an argument is a bug > > > - bisect--helper: really retire `--bisect-autostart` > > > - bisect--helper: really retire --bisect-next-check > > > - bisect--helper: retire the --no-log option > > > - bisect: avoid double-quoting when printing the failed command > > > - bisect run: fix the error message > > > - bisect: verify that a bogus option won't try to start a bisection > > > > > > Final bits of "git bisect.sh" have been rewritten in C. > > > > > > Expecting a (hopefully final) reroll. > > > cf. <20627.86ilolhnnn.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Junio: This link came up dead for me; I think the intended link was > 220627.86ilolhnnn.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ? I had mentioned this in https://lore.kernel.org/git/s3726r9p-r96o-7793-0qrq-o54rs4npr972@xxxxxx/ but failed to ask Junio to change it in the What's cooking mails. Thank you for pointing it out, too. > > > source: <pull.1132.v4.git.1656354677.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I had another look at the thread and did not see any feedback that focuses > > on the actual scope of the patch series. Conversions from scripted parts > > of Git to built-ins are always a bit finicky (and hard to review, I > > admit). > > > > Therefore I would like to move the status to "needs review". > > > > I do not think that there are any major issues with it (Ævar's feedback > > notwithstanding, it focuses on tangents that should be addressed after the > > conversion, to avoid losing focus), but I would love to see a thorough > > review of the conversion to avoid obvious regressions like the one in the > > built-in interactive `add` I had to fix recently. > > I reviewed it -- > https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEOX+zxR9-yyx-EaiOV-Z9yD0YP_Kwvu4iGB8enz40XXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/. > I looked over the subsequent iterations too, and they still look good > to me. Ooops. I am sorry for misrepresenting the situation. I honestly had forgotten that the patch series did, in fact, receive a good and thorough review. My apologies and thank you so much for all your help! Dscho
