On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:37:22PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > This bogus state didn't last long, however, because in the same patch > series 06f5608c14 (bisect--helper: `bisect_start` shell function > partially in C, 2019-01-02) the C reimplementation of bisect_start() > started calling the bisect_write() C function, this time with the > right 'nolog' function parameter. From then on there was no need for > the '--no-log' option in 'bisect--helper'. Eventually all bisect > subcommands were ported to C as 'bisect--helper' command modes, each > calling the bisect_write() C function instead, but when the > '--bisect-write' command mode was removed in 68efed8c8a > (bisect--helper: retire `--bisect-write` subcommand, 2021-02-03) it > forgot to remove that '--no-log' option. Yeah, but I don't think "--log" or "--no-log" is really the bug, is it? The same thing happens if my command is "echo --bisect-run". Obviously that's less likely, but the bug is still that we are parsing random options out of the supposedly opaque command. -Peff
