Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bisect: implement "bisect dunno" to mark untestable revisions.
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:40
Hi, On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/git-bisect.sh b/git-bisect.sh index 388887a..c556318 100755 --- a/git-bisect.sh +++ b/git-bisect.sh@@ -143,7 +145,7 @@ bisect_write_bad() { bisect_good() { bisect_autostart - case "$#" in + case "$#" in
White space breakage.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -153,7 +155,6 @@ bisect_good() { rev=$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev^{commit}") || exit bisect_write_good "$rev" echo "git-bisect good $rev" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" -
?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -164,6 +165,28 @@ bisect_write_good() { echo "# good: "$(git show-branch $rev) >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG" } +bisect_dunno() { + bisect_autostart + case "$#" in + 0) revs=$(git rev-parse --verify HEAD) || exit ;; + *) revs=$(git rev-parse --revs-only --no-flags "$@") && + test '' != "$revs" || die "Bad rev input: $@" ;; + esac + for rev in $revs + do + rev=$(git rev-parse --verify "$rev^{commit}") || exit + bisect_write_dunno "$rev" + echo "git-bisect dunno $rev" >>"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_LOG"
Should the last line not be put into bisect_write_dunno? OTOH this is the only call site of that function, so I strongly doubt that the function (consisting of 3 lines, where the first is 'rev="$1"') is necessary at all.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -206,17 +229,104 @@ bisect_auto_next() { bisect_next_check && bisect_next || : } +search_dunno() { + _hash="$1" + _dunno="$2" + + for _val in $_dunno ; do + case $_hash in $_val) return 1 ;; esac + done
This would be faster as case " $1" in " $2") return 1 ;; esac I guess. But as I said in the other reply, I think this logic belongs into the C core, instead of generating mostly useless information, passing it down to the script, and filtering it out again. Thanks, Dscho