Hi Pranit,

On 12/31/2016 11:43 AM, Pranit Bauva wrote:

quoted

quoted

+
+static int bisect_auto_next(struct bisect_terms *terms, const char *prefix)
+{
+     if (!bisect_next_check(terms, NULL))
+             return bisect_next(terms, prefix);
+
+     return 0;
+}

Hmm, the handling of the return values is a little confusing. However,
if I understand the sh source correctly, it always returns success, no
matter if bisect_next failed or not. I do not know if you had something
special in mind here.

Umm. Shell code used to die() and thus exit with an error code.

The invoked bisect_next shell code called "exit", right... you had to
replace this by passing return values. I get it. Thank you!

quoted

quoted

 int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)

@@ -643,6 +794,10 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
                       N_("print out the bisect terms"), BISECT_TERMS),
              OPT_CMDMODE(0, "bisect-start", &cmdmode,
                       N_("start the bisect session"), BISECT_START),
+             OPT_CMDMODE(0, "bisect-next", &cmdmode,
+                      N_("find the next bisection commit"), BISECT_NEXT),
+             OPT_CMDMODE(0, "bisect-auto-next", &cmdmode,
+                      N_("verify the next bisection state then find the next bisection state"), BISECT_AUTO_NEXT),

The next bisection *state* is found?

checkout is more appropriate. I don't remember why I used "find".

"checkout the next bisection commit" maybe?

Thanks,
  Stephan