On 2022-11-07 22:31:50+0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 06 2022, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > > > From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add three failing tests which succeed on v2.29.0, but due to the topic > > merged at [1] (specifically [2]) have been failing since then. We'll > > address those regressions in subsequent commits. > > > > There was also a "regression" where: > > > > git bisect run ./missing-script.sh > > > > Would count a non-existing script as "good", as the shell would exit > > with 127. That edge case is a bit too insane to preserve, so let's not > > add it to these regression tests. > > > > 1. 0a4cb1f1f2f (Merge branch 'mr/bisect-in-c-4', 2021-09-23) > > 2. d1bbbe45df8 (bisect--helper: reimplement `bisect_run` shell > > function in C, 2021-09-13) > > > > Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) > > Looks good, if I do say so myself :) (unchanged from my topic) > > But I wonder why your "fix the regression" base topic isn't starting > with this. I.e. our intial report was about that "--log" issue, but now > we know we altered the output in ways we didn't intend. Well, I would like to keep that topic as much short as possible to have a higher chance of fixing real regression first. Those changes is error/warning/log are less important as you said below ... > It's fine if we say "that's less important", but then ... something > should say that .. :) Sure, I will add it in the next revision. -- Danh
