Re: [PATCH v14 5/8] bisect: introduce --no-checkout support into porcelain.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Jon Seymour [off-list ref] writes:
...

quoted

+		if test "$BISECT_MODE" = "--no-checkout"; then
+		    git update-ref --no-deref HEAD "$start_head"
+		else
+		    git checkout "$start_head" --
+		fi

Just a minor worry but I would not be surprised if somebody's "test"
implementation barfs upon:

	test "--no-checkout" = "--no-checkout"

mistaking the string with a dash at the beginning as an option unknown to
it. That is why we often have "z$variable" in our comparison, like so:

	if test "z$BISECT_MODE" = "z--no-checkout"
        then
        	git update-ref --no-deref BISECT_HEAD "$start_head"
	else
        	git checkout "$start_head" --
	fi

quoted

-	git rev-parse --sq-quote "$@" >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES" &&
+	git rev-parse --sq-quote "$@" >"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_NAMES"
+	echo "$BISECT_MODE" > "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_MODE" &&

&&?

Having said that, other than these minor nits, I think this round is
almost ready. I didn't check how it behaves upon "bisect reset",
though. It shouldn't touch the index, HEAD nor the working tree (it
probably is just the matter of "update-ref -d BISECT_HEAD" and nothing
else, but I haven't thought things through thoroughly).

Further polishing we may want to do while it is still in pu/next I can
think of off the top of my head are:

 - In this mode, I can bisect the history even inside a bare repository,
   as the whole point of --no-checkout is that the mode does not require a
   working tree. I however suspect "git bisect" requires working tree. Is
   this something we want to fix?

 - Further, perhaps should we default to this mode inside a bare
   repository?

Christian, do you think of anything else?  Also do you see flaws in our
reasoning that updating only BISECT_HEAD and doing nothing else is a good
way to do this?