Re: [PATCH v13 5/8] bisect: introduce --no-checkout support into porcelain.
From: Jon Seymour <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:44
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Christian Couder [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jon Seymour [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Jon Seymour [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Christian Couder [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tuesday 02 August 2011 16:41:13 Jon Seymour wrote:quoted
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Christian Couder If I was to do this, I'd prefer to change uses of $BISECT_MODE with a call to a function bisect_mode() that does the same thing.Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to have a bisect_mode() function. I don't like very much to blindly call some code when we might not need it.Mmmm. Actually, there is a neater way to do this. I'll such use the existence of BISECT_HEAD to inform the implementation of bisect_mode(). This avoids the need for a separate .git/BISECT_MODE file.Yeah, but then you have to be careful of the fact that BISECT_HEAD might have not been properly deleted or might have been created by the user for other purposes.
I have removed $GIT_DIR/BISECT_MODE in v15. If BISECT_HEAD was being used for other purposes, it is going to get deleted anyway, irrespective of whether we have a separate BISECT_MODE file, so I am not sure we need to consider that when deciding when we need a separate BISECT_MODE file. FWIW: bisect_mode() was only going to get called from one place so I just inlined the implementation in that place. (on the call to bisect--helper). jon.